Jailbreaking = Going to Jail?

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

iPhone.jlk.20090801The hot news recently has been about unlocking (or “jailbreaking”) Apple’s iPhone. Apple posted the following statement on its website (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3743), which as of 8/1/09 was not available at Apple’s site, but still available via Google’s cache:

“Unauthorized modification of iPhone OS has been a major source of instability, disruption of services, and other issues

“As designed by Apple, the iPhone OS ensures that the iPhone and iPod touch operate reliably. Some customers have not understood the risks of installing software that makes unauthorized modifications to the iPhone OS (“jailbreaking”) on their iPhone or iPod touch. Customers who have installed software that makes these modifications have encountered numerous problems in the operation of their hacked iPhone or iPod touch. Examples of issues caused by these unauthorized modifications to the iPhone OS have included the following:

“Device and application instability: Frequent and unexpected crashes of the device, crashes and freezes of built-in apps and third-party apps, and loss of data.

“Unreliable voice and data: Dropped calls, slow or unreliable data connections, and delayed or inaccurate location data.

“Disruption of services: Services such as Visual Voicemail, YouTube, Weather, and Stocks have been disrupted or no longer work on the device. Additionally, third-party apps that use the Apple Push Notification Service have had difficulty receiving notifications or received notifications that were intended for a different hacked device. Other push-based services such as MobileMe and Exchange have experienced problems synchronizing data with their respective servers.

“Compromised security: 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.

“Shortened battery life: The hacked software has caused an accelerated battery drain that shortens the operation of an iPhone or iPod touch on a single battery charge.

“Inability to apply future software updates: Some unauthorized modifications have caused damage to the iPhone OS that is not repairable. This can result in the hacked iPhone or iPod touch becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone OS update is installed.

“Apple strongly cautions against installing any software that hacks the iPhone OS. 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.”

The Appleworld has seems to have gone nuts over the warnings just recited, with significant backlash from users and the media.  Interestingly, there are two questions in play:  First, is it legal to unlock the iPhone and make other modifications to the firmware?  Second, can the terrible things that Apple warns of actually happen?

As to the first question, about the legality of hacking into Apple’s iPhone firmware, you need look for farther than a televised interview I gave to Canada’s Business News Network (BNN) on September 12, 2007, which you can watch on a special page at TelecomLawFirm.com.  The short answer is, ‘for now, it’s legal.’  Visit the page list linked and you’ll get a better idea why this is my answer.

Regarding the second question, dealing with the horrible things that can happen if you play with the iPhone’s firmware, I don’t know for sure.  But, what I do believe as an RF engineer, a software technologist, and a person with a bit of common sense is that Apple is not blowing smoke in our faces, but may merely be describing the smoke it would like us to smell.  Clearly all of the things listed by Apple seem well within the range of possible consequences that might reasonably occur if a person hacks the iPhone, but Apple has done precious little to provide data to back up its mere assertions that these things are happening.  Once?  A thousand times?  Only on Tuesdays?  Where’s the beef?

Of course, another result of hacking the iPhone might be to develop new and useful innovations not conceived at Apple, thus not controlled by Apple.  This is not a bad thing.

Finally, the reason why this is such a hot issue RIGHT NOW is that the U.S. Copyright Office is revisiting its present rules exception that makes hacking cell phone firmware legal (or, if you will, not illegal).  These revisits occur every three years, so now is the proper time for this full-court press by Apple.

We’ll see where this ends, but regardess of the Copyright Office’s action, hacking will continue.  If the Copyright Office sides with Apple, that firm will be in the unenviable position of going after its most loyal and innovative customers, and being seen as the big back Microsoft Jr.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Cell Contract Early Termination Fee? How about $0?

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

One of the most honest ways to exit from a wireless carrier’s iron-clad service contract is to show that their service in and around your home or work is inferior.  This is especially true if, before you signed up for service, you visited the carrier’s website or local office and saw the pretty maps that assert their claimed coverage around your home, work, or both.

For several examples of such maps, visit AT&T’s site or Verizon’s site, but be sure to check out the disclaimer language on the map page; here’s Verizon’s small print disclaimer:

These Coverage Locator maps are not a guarantee of coverage and may contain areas with no service. These maps reflect a depiction of predicted and approximate wireless coverage of the Verizon Wireless Network and the network of other carriers. The coverage areas shown do not guarantee service availability, and may include locations with limited or no coverage. Even within a coverage area, there are many factors, including a customer’s equipment, terrain, and proximity to buildings, foliage, and weather that may impact service. An all-digital device will not operate or be able to make 911 calls when digital service is not available. Some of the coverage area includes networks run by other carriers; some of the coverage depicted is based on their information and public sources and we cannot ensure its accuracy.

What about the situation where a wireless carrier has good coverage at your home and work, but sometime later it tanks.   In this case, the carriers who offer something like Verizon’s 30-day Worry Free Guarantee® will likely tell you to take a hike after 30 days, even if their service goes down or away.

You’re asking why a carrier with good coverage today would have bad coverage in the future? Well, sometimes carriers realign and reduce cell site coverage to permit them to add more cell sites into their existing network.  This is to increase capacity and in-building penetration, but the result can be that some customers actually lose service.

The bottom line is that cellular/PCS service changes by your carrier may render your service unavailable or less reliable in areas where you had solid coverage and adequate capacity.  If the carrier’s network changes leave you high-and-dry, call and demand that they restore your service to its previous level, or to release you from the balance of the contract without paying the early termination fee.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

More New Cell Site Photos

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

I’ve just added some very interesting cell site photos to my on-line planner’s collection.  Just added sites include a Sprint “Monorock”, a very attractive ‘tower’ site, and a ‘fun’ pair of camo sites at an amusement park.

To visit the gallery, just click on the large banner photo above, or select the gallery link in the menu bar.

Enjoy!

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

US Supreme Court DENIES Cert in Sprint v. San Diego, Level 3 v. St. Louis Cases

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court

Today the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in the Sprint v. County of San Diego and Level 3 v. St. Louis cases.

For local governments and telecom carriers in the 9th Circuit, this means that telecom carriers who want to challenge a zoning decision will in most ever case have to show that the local ordinance, AS APPLIED, acts as a prohibition to the provision of a telecom service.

Under the old, now overruled standard, a telecom carrier needed only to show that a local ordinance could prevent a provider from providing a telecom service (the so-called ‘facial attack’).

Tom Bunton, Esq., of the County Counsel’s office in San Diego is a hero to local governments.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Oui we do supply cell site photos!

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Several times each year I receive queries about making cell site photos from my collection available for use in magazines and other publications.

I was contacted months ago by a French magazine, “LE NOUVEAU MAGAZINE DU PALAIS DE TOKYO” (“The New Magazine of the Palais of Tokyo”) to supply cell site photos for an issue of their magazine about electronic spying.  This one I said yes to!

On June 1, 2009 I received in the mail a couple of copies of the magazine, and found the article by Matt O’dell titled, “Manipulations des esprits mobiles” (translation: “Mobile Mind Control”).

The magazine did a wonderful job with the color separations and the printing in their magazine.

My favorite quote from the Matt’s article is, “One of the most extreme conspiracy beliefs is that the masts are operating as a giant network of mind control weapons: That they are a part of a sinister plan by global governments to control the population.”

Wonderful!   Click on magazine cover to visit their site.

-Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Forrester Research: When all Phones Are Smart…

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

…none are.

Forrester Research has just released the first in a series of reports on “SmartPhones” concluding that so many mid-range phones now have smart features, it’s hard to define what a really smart phone is these days.

“All mobile handsets are becoming smarter and Internet-capable. Yesterday’s smart high-end phone is today’s midrange phone and tomorrow’s entry-level phone. The ‘smartphone’ category is no longer useful as all phones become smart.”

To redefine really smartphones in a smart-saturated handset marketplace, Forrester proposes a new trifecta to define future ‘real smarts’ in a cell phone handset:

1. Openness and extensibility; and

2. Consumption and creation; and

3. Utility and entertainment.

(No, I don’t know what those terms mean, either, but for US $749 you can purchase their report, released on May 15th, and find out.  By the way, at 23 pages, your per-page cost is only $32.57…a bargin if the page count doesn’t include the table of contents; about the author; about Forrester; about etc.)

I propose labeling this blog as being 14G, which gives me a few years before someone proposes 15G, to which I must say, “Gee!”

-Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

US Supreme Court: ‘Let’s Call a Friend’

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

At its conference on March 20th, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether to grant certiorari (the so-called “Rule of 4”) in two key cases dealing with the Telecom Act, and specifically with the interplay between Section 253 and Section 332(c).

These cases, Level 3 v. St. Louis and Sprint v. County of San Diego, address local government controls and the reach of telecom ordinances.  St. Louis deals with wireline issues, while San Diego deals with wireless issues.

Rather then deciding to grant or deny cert in these two cases, the Justices have asked the new United States Solicitor General, Elena Kagan to file a brief containing the views of the United States on these two cases.  Call it a “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” ‘Call-a-Friend lifeline’ or a “Cash Cab” ‘Street Shout-Out.’

Sometimes called the 10th Supreme Court Justice, the Solicitor General is occationally ‘invited’ to weigh in like now on certain cases brought before the nation’s highest court.

I expect that it will be at least several months before the Solictor General gets through all of the industry and governments briefs and letters designed to suggest how she should advise the Supremes, and writes her brief.

Tick…tock…tick…tock…

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

DOJ: 4th Amendment Should Not Apply to Cell Phone Records

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Should cell phone tower data be made available to law enforcement without a warrant?  That what the US Department of Justice (DOJ) would like to see.

In an appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, the DOJ says it should have the the authority to compel wireless carriers to provide cell phone switch data that is historical in nature, and without the need to first obtain a warrant.

The argument posed by the DOJ is that historical records of cell phone use and towers used by a subscriber is not akin to a pen register or trap-and-trace devices, thus no warrant should be needed.

The problem for the DOJ is that cell phone records, and specifically records of what towers were used, amount to location data, and telephone number data (as would be disclosed by a pen register).  It’s hard to understand why the DOJ thinks that the same data that would require a warrant where it in connection with a landline phone would not need a warrant if in connection with a mobile phone.  The DOJ rests its argument as follows:

Under the longstanding canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (“the expression of one is the exclusion of the other”), a court should presume that if “Congress wanted to include such a requirement … it knew exactly how to do so.”

This, of course, is silly since it presumes that Congress knows all technology now in existence, and what will come into existence in the unforeseeable future.  It is essentially a loop-hole way into saying that what Congress didn’t know is what it intended to omit.  Yeah, right.

For an example of how the police use cell phone tower data to assert that someone is somewhere when something is happening, look at the following excerpt from the Affidavit for an Arrest Warrant for one Donna Moonda, which is found on the US DOJ website:

With the assistance of the cellular telephone companies involved, investigators were able to map out Damian Bradford’s travel on May 13, 2005, by accessing cell tower locations  where the calls were routed. It has been confirmed that Damian Bradford was the individual utilizing the cell phone through numerous interviews with individuals who either called Bradford or received a call from him. In the early afternoon hours of May 13, 2005, that information showed Bradford moving North and Donna Moonda traveling South in Pennsylvania to a meeting location mid-way between their residences. Shortly thereafter, Donna Moonda traveled back to Hermitage and Bradford traveled back to the Aliquippa area, north of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In mid-afternoon, Bradford traveled North until he eventually reached Hermitage, Pennsylvania, between 3-4 p.m. At approximately 4:30 p.m. the Moondas, along with Donna Moonda’s mother, Dorothy Smouse, left Hermitage, Pennsylvania and traveled on the Ohio Turnpike on a planned trip to Toledo, Ohio. Cell site information, along with time/distance calculations, showed Damian Bradford moving in sync with the Moondas from Pennsylvania to the Ohio Turnpike.

In the end, what the DOJ wants is a judge-made exception of the 4th Amendment.  That Amendment prohibits warrantless searches, which is exactly what the DOJ wants in connection with cell phone records.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Traffic, Talking, and Early Termination

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Several recent articles have appeared linking cell phone usage while driving (or merely walking on the streets) to a higher rate of traffic-related deaths.

In an article titled, “Danger of Cell Phone Use: While Walking Or Driving, Cell Phones Increase Traffic, Pedestrian Fatalities” published in Science Daily on March 8, 2009, several new studies about traffic deaths related to cell phone use are reviewed.

The “life-saving effect” occurred as the volume of phones grew into the early 1990s, and increasing numbers of cells were used to call 911 following accidents, leading to a drop in fatalities, explains Loeb. But this life-saving effect was canceled out once the numbers of phones reached a “critical mass” of  about 100 million and the “life-taking effect” – increased accidents and fatalities — outweighed the benefits of quick access to 911 services, according to [Rutgers University, Newark, Economics Professor Peter D. ] Loeb.

Here is a link to the AAA Foundation’s December 2008 report.

Sobering stuff!  It’s the ultimate early termination fee.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail