Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Hacker frees iPhone from its carrier's clutches

JOANNA SMITH

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 6:00 PM EST 27/08/07

Triumphant teen explains to the world how to use gadget on other cell networks ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: Congrats if it works. On the other hand, I once bought a proprietary computer system. Every time I wanted to buy something I paid a premium for it. I never buy proprietary systems anymore. Regardless of the sexiness or whatever, it just isn't worth the money, somebody will soon have something just as cool but cheaper.
  2. Erik Richards from Winnipeg, MB, writes: I assume that when someone posts a hack to let anyone read the Globe's subscription-only pages that they will be equally gleeful, announcing that hackers have "freed" their revenue-generating pages.
  3. steve m from Chicago, United States writes: What a breakthrough... Simply incredible!
    The problem Joanna, is that this "discovery" was done by a 23 year old Macedonian student more than a month ago. He successfully unlocked ATT 's network and used T-Mobile and several other local networks on his i-phone.
    This did catch attention, briefly in Europe, because it's normal for people to do these things and it's not a big deal in terms of "rights". Whereas in North America obviously, different story.
  4. roger price from Andorra writes: Maybe oneday this hacker will work hard and come up with a great new idea of his own just to have it stolen, then see how he will complain that this is not fair. Nothing in life is free so the phone carriers will just download these missed charges to some other place. They cannot exist without revenues to cover costs and pay investors a divident so this smart guy is really just stupidity in action. He will pay one day and then he will cry in his beer...
  5. Canuck In_HK from Hong Kong, Hong Kong writes: Is this the case of an infringement on a proprietary patent, or an illustration of the power of 'wikinomics'? Maybe a bit of both...

    The 'old economics' have treated technological innovations as exclusive, monopolized domains with revenues flowing exclusively to the singular inventor/patent holders. This approach does not appear to work well in a world of instant collaboration, ideas uptake, and with global horizontal, networked affiliations.

    That a bright teen in Jersey could break-down and re-engineer a high tech device and then communicate his new 'solution' instantly globally spells trouble for the old model of doing business.

    Somehow rather than criminalize this type of problem-solving ingenuity and inventiveness we need systems/incentives that unleash the potential of millions of minds working in collaboration on the net to address humanities' most pressing problems. Quite Likely systems that combine collaborative, open access regimes with traditional proprietary access will fare better than old world 'exclusivity' models at spurning innovation and creativity.
  6. Paul Shales from Toronto, Canada writes: The iPhone was actually hacked by some people in the Czech Republic who run the site bladox.com. It requires one of their "Tubo Sim" products to do but is much less complex than this hack which followed shortly after. You can check out the timeline of these events at the Toronto based site iPhone-Hacks.com.
  7. R C from Canada writes: Roger - how did this 'hacker' steal an idea? Did he pay Apple for the phone? Yes. Did he know that his warranty would be voided if he made modifications to the hardware? Yes. Did he break a contract with AT&T? No - he used T-Mobile. What exactly is the problem? Who did he steal from?
  8. Hockey Widow from Renfrew, Canada writes: I can't help but marvel at the stupidity of those bidding on the "freed" phone. ??
  9. W.A. Darnell from Canada writes: Hackers from across the globe serve a great service to break technology from the clutches of corporate greed, ridiculous government regulations and nationalistic agendas. While we can put fences around physical things, our 'gray matter' has no human imposed boundaries. Like religiion convincing people to shift their allegiances in this 'unformed space', hackers perform a similar service. The ultimate freedom!
  10. Ikonn x from somewhere, Canada writes: Proving once again, for every system there is a way to beat it. I, for one, will be watching very carefully when the Smartcards come into wide usage in North America.
  11. John Stanton from Toronto, Canada writes: more great news from China....a rip off??? No way!! Shocker
  12. Gnarly kanuck from Ottawa, Canada writes: Funny... how people equate releasing the phone from the carrier network with patent infringement.

    Simple fact is locking the iPhone to AT&T is a marketing decision rather than anything technological.

    The problem with North American cell phone users is we fall for the marketing bunk from the carriers and do not understand that the cheap/free phones locked to a carrier cost us more because we are locked into ridiculous multi year contracts.

    Look to European carriers and see how they operate cheap phones, cheap simcards, cheap air time and great service and prices before you accept your next contract renewal offer.
  13. Richard Gratton from Montreal, Canada writes: Hardware hacks, of various descriptions and degrees of success, have been aroud for a while. I have an iPhone that works as a WIFI enabled iPod (no phone service -- just needed it for web-dev purposes) -- hack was done (software only) several weeks ago. But what G&M missed out on yesterday was a software-only hack: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070824-iphone-set-free-from-att-with-first-full-software-unlock.html Much less tricky, risky, and while I appreciate this guy's persistence, much more elegant.
  14. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >>> By early evening, the bidding had reached more than $25-million

    ???????
  15. Neal Zavitz from Canada writes: Obviously a fake bid... Unless its Oprah
  16. Larry Morrison from Calgary, Canada writes: Apple had this coming to them, and I hope they learn a lesson in this. They spent millions in creating such market hype on this product, then pull a nay nay nay nay nay nay on the public by creating such a restriction on it's allocation of service. Now, if they would have entered into marketing agreements with carriers in different Countries, this hack would not have been necessary, or am I wrong? It just seems that when a product is put out there that is widely sought after because of it's quality (remember Direct TV and the hack cards, reloader, etc), and then to have restrictions put it as to who can have it, it just encourages people to find some way of breaking that restriction.
  17. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: "" I assume that when someone posts a hack to let anyone read the Globe's subscription-only pages that they will be equally gleeful, announcing that hackers have "freed" their revenue-generating pages."" Yes, of course. Everybody wants to be paid, but nobody wants to pay for anything.
  18. Paul, Bytown, from Canada writes: Corporations always defend Free markets and Globalisation when it suits them and not the free people on this globe.
  19. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: If I could get my hands on Canuck In_HK's car, I would hotwire it and share it with my friends.
  20. bob gervitz from Buffalo, United States writes: I have to laugh at Larry Morrison's 2:33pm comment in which he says - It just seems that when a product is put out there that is widely sought after because of it's quality, and then to have restrictions put it as to who can have it, it just encourages people to find some way of breaking that restriction.

    Hey Larry, thanks. I always wanted a car. I'll take yours. I'd like another house. I'll take yours. My lawn mower only works on muscle power. I'll take your gas powered model cause I like it better. And your computer is nicer than mine, so let me have yours. And if I can I'm going to take your job (don't call me a scab, I'm just upset with the restriction of you having it).

    Does the concept of accepting the world as it is, with all its restrictions and benefits, EVER enter your mind, or is it only I'm an exception, I'll take what I want and to heck with the owner, inventor, creator, originator.
  21. AU GT from Long Beach, United States writes: Bob Gervitz, this is not an invention. If the kid had started producing his own phone, he would have certainly violated any patent on the I-phone

    Now, as to making things more widely usable, this is innovation. What if you bought a car that had a battery which only enabled it to go 5 miles without a recharge, but I modified it so that you could drive 25 miles without a recharge? Why you'd thank me. What if I showed you how to reconfigure your house so that another family could live in it, pay rent to you? Youd' thank me. What if your lawn mower only works on muscle power, but I showed you how to add a solar cell to get a power assist? Why you'd thank me.

    This isn't about taking, its about improving what you already have. Apple should thank this young man as it opens the market (supply v. demand) for its product. Cheaper patches will enable this phone to work on all networks and more of them will be sold. But of course, this is only the view of a patent and tax attorney.
  22. Jeff Kelly from Kitchener, Canada writes: Bob Gervitz, maybe if the kid had stolen his phones, you could make those kinds of comparisons. As it is, he paid for them and owned them and has the right to do whatever he wants to them. Your comparisons are slanderous, unfair, and narrow minded.
  23. Northern Menace from Canada writes: Better to wait for the Meizu M8 minione from China. It has the same keyless interface as the iPhone but runs more cellphone software and can be used on most or all cell networks. Plus it's half the price of an iPhone.
  24. Northern Menace from Canada writes: I'm gonna spend two hours with a coldering iron inside my cellphone? I haven't figured out how to text message with it yet.
  25. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: "" Better to wait for the Meizu M8 minione from China. "" Yes, I'll get one when I feel that Chinese products are generally safe to use, which should be about 2150 A.D..
  26. Northern Menace from Canada writes: China's like Japan of 30 years ago. When I was a kid my parents would not buy rubber boots from japan because they leaked. Canadian made boots did not. Now look at Japan. In 30 years the entire automotive industry will be in China with any remaining north american car companies only doing the design and engineering. All the manufacturing will be done in China.
  27. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: Amazing the ignorance on this board. The kid paid for the cell phone. So he owns the cell phone. Then he modifies the cell phone and he's called a hacker.

    Bob Gervitz - your comment is ridiculous bordering on stupid. This kid didn't steal anything. He bought the phone. Yet you somehow make the connection between hacker = thief. That's like me calling you a hacker and thief because you modified your car to run on biodiesel. Idiotic.
  28. bob gervitz from Buffalo, United States writes: What AU GT, Jeff Kelly and Devil's Advocate seem to conveniently forget is that it is Apple that owns the technology, not the hacker kid.

    When the phone was bought it came with a prescribed set of uses, a prescribed set of connections, and a prescribed physical make-up. More importantly, Apple made a specific service agreement with a specific service provider. That is their right as the technology owner.

    The kid did steal something guys, as if you didn't know it. He stole AT&T's sole license to provide the service. He stole AT&T's (and Apple's) money to be made from that agreement. He violated the license under which the phone was sold to him.

    Don't you guys read any of the license agreements that come with any of the products you buy? You are restricted in the ways you can use just about every piece of software on your computer, for example. Of course, if you pirated the software, as you seem to advocate, you don't care about such things. Now I wonder if when the kid has trouble operating the phone with another service provider, will he be able to sue Apple or AT&T for the problem?

    I repeat, what is so difficult about accepting the world as you find it. If you don't want to use the iPhone in the configuration Apple provided, don't buy it until it is legitimately available in other configurations. A big problem with the world today is that ever more people try to manipulate, steal, hack, cheat, steal, bamboozle, dupe, lie and whatever else they can to advantage themselves. As proven by your take on this issue. And most, like you, find it easy to justify their lack of ethics and/or morality. Ethical people don't need to hack, and don't need hackers.
  29. Gnarly kanuck from Ottawa, Canada writes: bob gervitz from Buffalo, United States..... I guess what you're saying is that when I buy a piece of technology like ....a Hammer... I can only use it for pounding nails... If I need to break up a bag of ice cubes... I should be precluded from doing so because it's not an ice hammer.

    Now what makes iPhone the Lad purchased different from any other tool is the exclusive arrangement between AT&T and Apple. This license precludes Vodafone, T mobile and others from selling the iPhone.

    If the phone is sold at a discount or free, then the discounted price is a condition of service with the carrier.

    This discussion should be more about restrictive use dictated by obscene consumer contracts with the carriers, than the alleged violation of obscure EULA conditions.
  30. John Stanton from Toronto, Canada writes: Just a point or two for self-righteous Bob from Buffalo . Firstly, if you are correct in your assertion that there is some criminality evident here, then you use the wrong language. The term 'hack' refers simply to modifying technology for an alternate purpose or use – there is no element of 'morality' in the act itself or motivation for it. The term 'crack' however, refers to the same action, except with criminal intent. And by 'criminal', I don’t mean liberating a few pennies from Microsoft, for example, through bypassing their licensing requirements. I mean hurting real people, like sending them a virus purely for amusement. Bob, you need to get this right; it’s the difference between 'lover' and 'rapist'. Secondly, Bob, If Apple or the carriers thought they were being put upon even in the slightest, they would have come down on these people like the hand of God, and destroyed them. So, actually, your defence of them, and self-righteous finger-wagging are probably nor needed. Pin-headed interpretations of morality are what has gotten us into this mess - lets get some common sense. If you buy a car, its ok to put wider tires on it than are speced by the manufacturer. Or a toaster, or a phone.
  31. Ron Eh from Halifax, Canada writes: Apple should brace themselves. Hackers will be targetting their products more and more. Soon they will be as vulnerable as the windows based systems.
  32. Bart Farquart from Calgaria, Canada writes:
    The kid paid for the phone. It's his phone. He has no legal obligation to use AT and T as his cell service provider. Full stop.

    Here's quotes from the article:

    "AT&T spokesman Michael Coe said Friday the carrier's multiyear agreement with Apple is still in place and referred all other questions to Apple.

    Apple Inc. did not return phone calls Friday."

    Does anyone doubt that if Apple or ATT had any sort of legal case that they would have immediately unleashed a crawling brood of lawyers on the kid?
  33. silly Billy from Dumbsville indai, United States writes: If the Iphone is made in China. Then it’s probably tainted with lead poison.

    Who was surprised that it would be a 17 year old? It&8217;s always some young kid. I&8217;m just surprised ATT or Cingular as I know them. I like how they re imaged themselves to the old ATT brand before the Iphone came out and made it look as if they were ATT the whole time! Sneeky..I wish they would fall off the earth.
  34. h w from Waterloo, Canada writes: What most people are missing was that what this kid did was perfectly legal under US law. The hated DMCA legislation that protects software and media (such as mp3 files and DVD video) from reverse engineering, does NOT apply to cell phone SIM-lock. This exception clause was specifically added to allow people to switch cell phone carriers and not be trapped by vendor lock-in. Any reverse engineering activities, cracking, hacking etc related to this ends are deemed legal by DMCA. However, it's quite possible that this is a violation of the service contract with AT&T, however, anyone buying an iPhone at an Apple store is not activated nor needs to sihn anything - they can take their phone home, perform any of the 4 currently known methods to unlock it, and start using it anywhere in the world. This includes Canada, which now has ready access to this product, albeit on ther pityiful Rogers/Fido GSM monopoly network.
  35. Kim Morton from Qualicum Beach B.C., Canada writes: I fail to see any difference between fixing an obvious upgrade to the iphone and adding aftermarket products to your car. He did afterall buy the phone and is paying a carrier to use it, just not the one prefered by Apple.
  36. Paul Bullock from Jersey, United Kingdom writes: David Gibson - You confuse theft with "re-purposing". The hacker in question stole nothing and violated no agreement, he simply bought a technology that had been introduced and modified it to make it more amenable to his needs.

    To abuse your car analogy a little, imagine a firm sold a car that was only driveable on the 407 toll highway in the GTA and you bought it and were clever enough to figure a way to make it driveable on the "free" highways. Do you think you should be charged with a crime? If so, which one?
  37. Paul Bullock from Jersey, United Kingdom writes: Incidentally people, this does nothing but good for Apple and I'm certain they're quite pleased. AT&T has been an obstacle to iPhone adoption and now a third party has solved the problem for Apple, without Apple having to expensively break marketing agreements with AT&T.

    It's not the same as hacking a MAC to run OSX on a cheap windows box, it's more like hacking a MAC sold to only run AOL so you can use it with any ISP. Apple wins.
  38. Richard Gratton from Montreal, Canada writes: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/not-so-fast/att-cracks-on-commercial-iphone-unlocking-groups-293468.php

    You see? Now it's getting interesting. This is the story the Globe should print front page... not that old-news hardware hack business.
  39. A. Nonymous from Sheepleville, Canada writes: It's illegal, plain and simple. The customer in question does not 'OWN' the hardware, they are simply leasing it. The company is granting the customer a limited license to use the firmware on the phone, for a SPECIFIC PURPOSE. Any attempt to modify the firmware, and that's illegal.

    Well, technically, they do 'own' the hardware, that is the shiny plastic case and battery, they can do anything to that, ie: buy high priced accessories, etc, but the firmware, nah, that's AT&T / Apple property.

    It's just like the DVD's and CD's you are leasing now. Companies grant you a license to listen to the music that's all. Come on people, learn to read up on your 'rights'.
  40. Jigs Karma from Toronto, Canada writes: People, I think Steve's just smiling. Once people have now learnt to break unlock the iPhone, more iPhones shall be sold. The only loss I can see is for AT&T.

    How is Apple losing money?
  41. Sam Snead from Canada writes: There was a cult following for the iphone. Being able to "hack" the iphone will only increase cult members. AT&T may be a little p$ssed, but they took their chances that the iphone couldn't be hacked for quite some time ... they lost.
  42. Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: A. Nonymous from Sheepleville: legally, you're completely and utterly incorrect. Even the draconian DMCA in the USA specifically excludes unlocking phones from specific carriers from its very long list of offences. Here in Canada it's completely legal to unlock a phone. Oh, and the hardware is purchased, not leased. The software on it is licensed, not purchased, but the hardware is a purchase, and is owned by the purchaser.

    So not one iota of your statement is actually correct.
  43. bob gervitz from Buffalo, United States writes: Just to update, on a related matter:
    "A subsidiary of UniquePhones was poised and ready to release remote software unlocking services for the iphone today at 12 noon EST. The sale of unlocking codes is on hold after the company received a telephone call from a Menlo Park, California, law firm at approximately 2:54 a.m. this morning (GMT).

    After saying they were phoning on behalf of AT&T, the law firm presented issues such as copyright infringement and illegal software dissemination."
  44. Ted Healey from Toronto, writes: Richard Gratton, take note that the site Gizmodo is referring to is under speculation as being a scam to harvest iPhone users IMEI codes for future sale.

    Some rational questions should be asked when viewing their blog post "press release":

    Who calls someone at 3am to issue a legal threat? According to their blog, they didn't record the number of the person calling. This person, who works as a cell phone tech doesn't have a phone that records incoming calls? Granted since he's in Ireland and overseas numbers might not show up but I find this hard to believe that he didn't get a name or number for further contact. Also his blog shows obvious cut-n-paste hastily inserted posts that started to show up when he missed his release deadline. It is possible to back-date posts.

    The forum Hackintosh speculates that this particular individual was waiting for the iPhoneSimFree hack (which is also curiously late) so he could sell it as his own.

    The amount of chatter regarding these hacks, cracks or whatever you want to call them, is the amazing thing here, IMHO. If I were Steve Jobs, I would be laughing (carefully) in my turtleneck sweater right now.
  45. Chris Fields from Canada writes: Bob Gervitz, I agree that sometimes we all must live within certain rules and accept things for the "way they are". But when those rules are unjust, it is up to anyone who can, to change those rules.

    Apple has developed a new phone that is cutting edge. Different from nearly every other phone out there. But have decided that you can only have it if you sign with AT&T. Personally I wish that because of this everyone told Apple to "stick it", but that's another story.

    But this would be similar to a car manufacturer building a new type of car, selling it and saying"sure you can buy this car, but you HAVE to fill it up at an Esso, and you can ONLY have it serviced at our dealership"?

    Sure you can walk away and buy another car, but if you can honestly say that you would accept that as "just the way it is" without thinking to yourself "If I spend $50,000 on a car, I am going to fill it and service wherever I feel like it", then there is no hope for you.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top