Is Apple Suggesting That The DMCA Prevents Terrorism?
from the yeah,-that's-believable dept
The EFF is trying to get a DMCA exemption from the Library of Congress for people who jailbreak their iPhones (if history is any indication, this won't happen -- the Library of Congress never seems to care about consumer rights). However, Apple's response to the Library of Congress, suggesting that open or jailbroken iPhones could be used by terrorists to bring down cell towers is both preposterous and totally unrelated to the issue at hand. First it's preposterous, as there are plenty of "open" devices out there already, and there has yet to be a single report of anyone taking down a cell tower with their mobile phone.But, much more to the point: the point of copyright is not to protect us from terrorists taking down cell towers. If we, as a country, are relying on the DMCA to protect us from terrorists who don't want us making phone calls, we've got bigger problems. Even if it were true that terrorists could take down cell towers with an open mobile phone, does anyone actually think they'd shy away from doing so because it violated the DMCA? It's not like that's going to make much of a difference at all. It's entirely meaningless to the question of whether or not legal buyers of a mobile device should have the right to place whatever legal software they want on the device.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, exemption, iphone, open, terrorism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Swiss Cheese Argument Smells like Guda
Besides, this data is available searching the respective websites so they can market space on the towers to other companies. Point is, this is an invalid argument.
It should be a problem that is so distanced from Apple for them to really care, and I doubt the Tower Management Industry would like Apple poking their nose into their business. A more likely reason for this is that jailbreaking is the result of some other revenue-robbing stream- maybe apps or something. That makes more sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Swiss Cheese Argument Smells like Guda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe Bill Cosby said it best when he said...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws Protect Us
Can we make it a law that any time someone tries to defend a law with "protects us from terrorists", they get shot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws Protect Us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws Protect Us
But then our own government would have been an accessory to breaking that law...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The other comment was more interesting
"Apple also claimed that jailbreaking would pave the way for hackers to alter the Exclusive Chip Identification number that identified the phone to the cell tower, which could enable calls to be made anonymously. Apple said “this would be desirable to drug dealers.”"
since jailbreaking is already possible, does this mean this "Exclusive Chip Identification number" is already changeable? What does being "Anonymous" actually mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The other comment was more interesting
If this is the case, it could confirm they are closing in on a CDMA variation of the iPhone, but remain worried about users re-flashing the PRL so it would work on other CDMA networks.
Example: Carrier X gets CDMA exclusivity to iPhone CDMA, but Carrier Y has a better rateplan. The phone could possibly be re-flashed to work on Carrier Y, which is more desirable to the end-user. This may cause Carrier X to loose revenue.
Proposed Fix: Keep people from using Carrier Y via legal manuvering and an exception to DCMA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A different perspective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A different perspective
Dan's a smart guy, and worth reading, but he makes me look like a Bill Gates groupie. Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A different perspective
Dan's take is actually pretty ridiculous once you stop and think about it. Most of his stuff is sensationalist and he does little to hide his biased against Apple competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A different perspective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple's arguments
This is pretty silly, since there are already plenty of tools out there to do so, but at least there's a thread of attempted logic there. They aren't claiming that a terrorist is going to say "Gee, I'd like to jailbreak this iPhone and attack a cell tower but the DMCA says I can't, so I guess I won't." They're saying that adding an exemption would make it easier for a terrorist to find the tools to do the jailbreak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple's arguments
I find it funny that you actually wasted a minute typing up a rationalization for a "thread of attempted logic". I suppose if Apple wanted to take this further, they could try to get the government to outlaw all of its competitors, since any terrorist could buy one of those instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple's arguments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are off base
With all this crap on "checking your sources" from TechDirt, I hope you do more than just whine. This is a clear case of Wired (and now TechDirt too) hyping something out of proportion. No where in the document does Apple claim threats to national security or some grandiose notional of mass network destruction. In fact, Apple points out the larger monetary affects and burden to existing resources (including tech support, overloaded bandwidth).
Finally, this is not about "an open phone" being a threat to national security, as this TechDirt article suggests. Apple is indicating that based on it's trusted relationship with AT&T (page 12), compromises to the underlying software may open the network services to a greater threat. Given that Apple uses ECID technology to enforce some services; compromises may affect the compromised phone and in some cases the network.
Apple's making a pretty clear point that compromises to the OS increases the risk to the phone os and/or other functionality. I think that's kind of obvious; when people hack it, it doesn't work right. Go figure.
I think this is just Apple's attempt to reduce it's own accountability when jailbroken phones screw something up and people complain.
So where in this document, not Wired's opinion article but the actual Apple response document, do you see the implication to national security? Where in fact do you see major network or system failures that would ALLUDE to such a conclusion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are off base
Even that's still an stupid and inaccurate statement, if this was a real issue we would have all the non apple phones (and jail broken iphone) causing problems to the networks for years and guess what? Does not happen
The whole iPhone lock down is about one thing and one thing only, apple controlling what you can and cannot do with your purchase after the point of sale, anything else is an excuse trying to justify something that non apple product users would find totally unacceptable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I buy a car is it legal to put a different engine in it?
Does it matter that with a faster engine i might outrun persuing law enforcement?
Does it matter that with a larger suspension i might haul a larger bomb somewhere?
Terrorists sould easily do either of those things...
I don't see them trying to make it illegal to work on my car? Or do anything i want to it...
When i buy something i own it... i can cut it into pieces or whatever... it is mine...
Like a computer... I could load any OS i want... I don't have to use the Windows or whatever it came with... even on an apple!
What makes the phone any different?
Besides, If they wanted to hack the cell tower they would use a laptop...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure it can...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More news to follow at 8:58 (can't say nine anymore)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
given the current state of affairs with lawsuits
no matter how ridiculous it is, it is the situation that they are trying to defend against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: given the current state of affairs with lawsuits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple logic
You don't get it? Let me give you another example:
Hitler was a vegetarian + I am vegetarian => I am Hitler!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Similar to another argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Similar to another argument...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating anything, but don't come out with a total strawman here and think you're clever. Stricter laws against homocides wouldn't work, because the people who commit them are generally not thinking of the consequences. When you decide to take a man's life, you're either being very careful (and then you're probably not using a gun anyway) or you're being reckless in which case very few laws will stop you.
In addition, you've misunderstood this argument. Apple isn't asking for any new laws to be passed. They're asking for a law currently in place not to have any exemptions in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Great iPhone by Apple
Well, the all powerful and mighty iPhone has this capability. That is why they don't want it allow. =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Great iPhone by Apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA Protects the Children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA Protects the Children
Safari.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone is missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's an app for that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1: So we are ready to blow up the building?
2: yes, we have all the explosives. We should be able to bring down the whole building. Many people will be killed.
1: And guns and ammunition?
2: Enough to kill any police that may interfere, even SWAT teams.
1: Good. I will coordinate you with this iPhone I have. Once I jailbreak it, our calls will be untraceable.
2: NO! Jailbreaking an iPhone is illegal! You will break the DMCA laws! Do you want to get us arrested?
Yeah right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides the cited case, which involved garage door openers and interoperable remotes, there have been similar decisions involving printers and interoperable ink cartridges and other product categories. It seems to me that iPhones and non-AT&T cellular carriers, and iPhones and non-iTMS/non-Apple-App-Store music/app stores, are entirely analogous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]