Jailbreaking
When Apple designs these products, they come with a redesigned firmware that restricts certain capabilities that otherwise the device would be able to do, such as wife mobile hotshots, direct downloading capabilities, and more Insignificant features, like moving screen savers. Along with the understandable, “deserved” capabilities Jailbreak offers, It also enables the ability for the user to access and download APS, and settings that Apple’s firmware protected against due to their Illegal content. Thus the question on the topic Is If jailbreak is the “right” thing for a user to do with his/her device.
Due to the fact hat the user purchases the device outright, they should have the right to do whatever they please with the firmware and device itself even if it enables illegal activities, the user should be able to decide whether or not to obey the law, and the user should have full control of their apple device. When someone purchases any material object, it is the assumption that the buyer has the right to do as he/she pleases with the purchased object, and the situation should not be any different for the ‘Touch, Phone, or Pad, Thus making the process of Jailbreak morally acceptable, as well as legally Just.
If a restriction Is put on a person’s own property, then the property really Is not owned, which Is okay, If that Is pre-deloused to the buyer so that they know that everything about the purchased object must maintain its original construct. In the case of these Apple products, stipulations were not pre-disclosed to the buyer, and instead Apple attempted to put restrictions on the process of jailbreak after the products were sold, which is morally unacceptable, as well as unfair to the user.
When someone goes to the electronics store, or apple vendor to purchase the phone, r one of its cousin devices it is always the situation that the device is purchased outright, even if it is purchased with an attached cell phone contract, the device belongs to the buyer, but for some reason Apple still believes that although they have sold their product outright, they should still be able to control what the purchaser does with the device sold. This idea that Apple has Is completely ludicrous, and to put the situation In perspective, let’s change the scenario, being the object purchased, and the business selling.
Suppose someone went to a typical car dealership and purchased a brand new rives home in his new car, and starts tinkering with the engine, installing a blower through the hood, and a super charger for the extra speed. If the dealership called the buyer and told him that these modifications aren’t allowed by their company, the buyer would be thoroughly confused and upset, for it is policy that once an object is purchased the buyer can do as they please with the object.
Although there is a great difference between a car and an phone, the concepts involved with the two of them are essentially the same, when someone buys a car they can tinker, and add on to the icicle as much as they want, and the situation should be no different for any of the Apple products under discussion. The main point that Apple tried to use when trying to make the process of jailbreak illegal was when they stated that the process was in violation of copyright laws because it modifies the boatload they had designed, and have complete ownership of.
Unfortunately for Apple, their case was lost in court, and the process of Jailbreak was proved to be legal, an article written about the case took an excerpt from the trial’s outcome, writing, “Federal regulators lifted a cloud of uncertainty when they announced it was lawful to hack or “Jailbreak” an phone, declaring Monday there was ‘no basis for copyright law to assist Apple in protecting its restrictive business model. “(wired. Com).
After losing their case in court, Apple decided to make a policy for Jailbreaks devices that disavowed any Apple Care (insurance) on the Jailbreaks pods. Apple’s main reasoning for the policy they made, is that the modifications to the SO that Jailbreak does causes system errors, and other minor problems to the devices performance, Apple states (when speaking of why Jailbreak should not be permitted), “Disruption of services: Services such as Visual Biochemical, Youth, Weather, and Stocks have been disrupted or no longer work on the device.
Additionally, third-party APS 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 Mobile and Exchange have experienced problems synchronizing data with their respective servers. “(Redmond). Although what Apple states about how Jailbreak an hinder the devices performance, and cause otherwise non-existent problems may be true, it is not Justification to put a limitation on what a user can do to the device.
Even if Jailbreak made the Apple product completely break without hope for repair, the act of doing it should always be the user’s choice. Another aspect to look into when considering if the devices in question should be allowed to be Jailbreaks, is the illegal side of the capabilities Jailbreak offers. It is a known fact that once an phone is Jailbreaks, due to the fact it can connect online ritually anywhere due to the cell service, it can be one of the most devastating tools for a hacker.
The significant difference between one of the Apple devices hacking, and a computer hacking, is this difference in internet connection, as well as mobility and concealment. After all, someone sitting outside of a house with a laptop and an encoder attached to the computer would look a lot more conspicuous than a passerby that seems to Just be testing on an phone, when in fact they could be using one of the many wife hacking APS like “rickrack” to access the files on your amputees, or in your “cloud” trying to get social security numbers, credit card electronic storage.
The fact that an phone alone could give hackers and identity thieves the Holy Grail they have awaited is a fact that Apple tried to exploit when giving reasons as to why Jailbreak should be illegal. Apple stated, “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 mallard or viruses. ” (Redmond).
Although every claim Apple made is a act, and there are security risks that come along with the legalization of Jailbreak, it is very obvious once the situation is examined, that if a hacker truly wished to us an Apple device to his/her evil ends, it really would not matter whether or not the process was legal or not for hackers and identity thieves are already doing illegal things, thus even if Jailbreak was “illegal” they would still do it.
Although the negative aspects to Jailbreak are often magnified, there are actually more benefits than risks to the process. When a device is Jailbreaks, its full attention is reached. An entirely new app store is revealed to the user, APS that could not/ would not contract with the Apple app store are available for purchase, and sometimes for free.
Along with thousands of new APS, Jailbreak also allows the user to customize the load out (home screen) and dock (bottom toolbar) to their liking, while still being connected to the original Apple app store. In an article about the pros and cons of Jailbreak PC world wrote, “Acadia and its newer, lighter competitor Icy are the unofficial app stores available only to Jailbreaks. In these tortes, you’ll find hundreds of terrific APS that have been rejected from the App Store for providing features that Apple would rather you not have.
Examples? Accorder is a camera app that enables video-recording on pre-ASS phones; Pedant allows tethering of your 36 connection to your laptop; and Gobble is an app for the Google Voice service. Plus, you can still get free and paid APS from the official App Store, so Jailbreaks get the best of both worlds. “(popcorn). With this substantial advantage given to Jailbreaks, it is understandable why it is done, and why it is the est. thing to do if the user truly wants complete control of their device without limitation.
This reasoning for Jailbreak also proves that malice is not attached to every reason for Jailbreak, the process can, and more often than not is simply done to access APS, and customizations restricted by the app store, and as long as the reasoning is pure and without foul intention Jailbreak is the right thing to do. After every aspect of Jailbreak is examined, the pros and cons, the risks, and legalities, it is more than apparent that the process is morally acceptable to do, as Eng as the Jailbreak is also the owner, or has permission from the owner of the device.
The process is also acceptable because of the simple fact that as of today it is legal, despite Apples efforts to make it otherwise. Through the use of the situation between Apple and Jailbreak people can be reminded of the importance of owning anything in life, the responsibility that comes along with the situation, as well as the great satisfaction, for when anything in life is truly owned the only person/ thing that can make the rules is the owner, a situation that is too often taken for granted in today’s society.
