Hey guys..
Me and a friend is working on a presentation at our university.. The course is about reflecting over IT issues, so of course we chose to reflect over jailbreaking.
We are brainstorming everything we can right now and was hoping, if some of you that had an opinion or thought on the matter, would like to pitch your opinion on it in. We will most likely integrate it in our presentation then.
What we are particularly interested in, is arguments for and against jailbreaking (from all possible views; both the hacker, consumer, and manufacturer). Feel free discussing your opinions too, if there is a disagreement between some of you. That would be okay too, I wouldn't mind.. Its all juicy stuff for us :3
Let me come with a few suggestions, regarding what we have thought so far.. Sorry, but I'm just gonna write them in point form, instead of writing a text for each. That would be too much:
(Ps. Please just read some of the points and pitch in, if there are too many points. No need to read them all, they are independent of each other)
Against jailbreaking (=supporting closed systems):
-It would allow copyright circumvention
-Removes security that normally would protect the user against malicious software
-(can) Destroy and damage the hardware
For jailbreaking (=supporting open systems):
-The main purpose is for the sake of knowledge, and for the sake of running homebrew, not copyright circumvention.
-You will achieve full performance and usefulness of what you have paid for
-We have bought the device, hence we have the full right to do with it as we please. If we buy a litre of milk, the farmer should not decide whether it should be legal or illegal toss it up in the air besides drinking it.
And here are some thoughts:
-It might be that it allows copyright circumvention, but it is wrong of the companies to assume that people would do something criminal, if they are given an opportunity. Knowing that something might be harmful, is not the same as causing harm.
-Hackers that jailbreak and hack open restricted devices, do so in the pursuit of knowledge, and in the belief that knowledge should be freely accessible. If things are being limited, it restricts the opportunities to experience and learn from them.
-Companies such as Sony places restrictions on their device, to maximize their profit, and not to protect us.
-Companies such as Apple do the same. They are not placing protections on their devices to protect us from malicious software, they are doing so to be able to control the way we should experience and use their product. They are simply doing it to protect their business model and gain an unfair advantages in business (for instance by being the only one allowed with an appstore.. Which they earn on... Or being Apple to have the power to decide, what programs should be allowed to be sold or not... Take for instance Google's Google voice that apple did not allow. Or the Firefox browser(and more than 25% uses firefox), which Apple did not allow on their console). It also gives them an unfair advantage in innovation. They disallowed all videocam recording software on the AppStore in the iPhone 3G days, and then used videocam recording as one of the major salespoint, when announcing the iPhone 3GS (and it wasn't because videocam recording wasn't possible on the iPhone 3G. There was being published apps on the unofficial appstore for jailbroken iPhones (Cydia) that allowed it).
Me and a friend is working on a presentation at our university.. The course is about reflecting over IT issues, so of course we chose to reflect over jailbreaking.
We are brainstorming everything we can right now and was hoping, if some of you that had an opinion or thought on the matter, would like to pitch your opinion on it in. We will most likely integrate it in our presentation then.
What we are particularly interested in, is arguments for and against jailbreaking (from all possible views; both the hacker, consumer, and manufacturer). Feel free discussing your opinions too, if there is a disagreement between some of you. That would be okay too, I wouldn't mind.. Its all juicy stuff for us :3
Let me come with a few suggestions, regarding what we have thought so far.. Sorry, but I'm just gonna write them in point form, instead of writing a text for each. That would be too much:
(Ps. Please just read some of the points and pitch in, if there are too many points. No need to read them all, they are independent of each other)
Against jailbreaking (=supporting closed systems):
-It would allow copyright circumvention
-Removes security that normally would protect the user against malicious software
-(can) Destroy and damage the hardware
For jailbreaking (=supporting open systems):
-The main purpose is for the sake of knowledge, and for the sake of running homebrew, not copyright circumvention.
-You will achieve full performance and usefulness of what you have paid for
-We have bought the device, hence we have the full right to do with it as we please. If we buy a litre of milk, the farmer should not decide whether it should be legal or illegal toss it up in the air besides drinking it.
And here are some thoughts:
-It might be that it allows copyright circumvention, but it is wrong of the companies to assume that people would do something criminal, if they are given an opportunity. Knowing that something might be harmful, is not the same as causing harm.
-Hackers that jailbreak and hack open restricted devices, do so in the pursuit of knowledge, and in the belief that knowledge should be freely accessible. If things are being limited, it restricts the opportunities to experience and learn from them.
-Companies such as Sony places restrictions on their device, to maximize their profit, and not to protect us.
-Companies such as Apple do the same. They are not placing protections on their devices to protect us from malicious software, they are doing so to be able to control the way we should experience and use their product. They are simply doing it to protect their business model and gain an unfair advantages in business (for instance by being the only one allowed with an appstore.. Which they earn on... Or being Apple to have the power to decide, what programs should be allowed to be sold or not... Take for instance Google's Google voice that apple did not allow. Or the Firefox browser(and more than 25% uses firefox), which Apple did not allow on their console). It also gives them an unfair advantage in innovation. They disallowed all videocam recording software on the AppStore in the iPhone 3G days, and then used videocam recording as one of the major salespoint, when announcing the iPhone 3GS (and it wasn't because videocam recording wasn't possible on the iPhone 3G. There was being published apps on the unofficial appstore for jailbroken iPhones (Cydia) that allowed it).