> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:11:07AM +0900, Ben Shewmaker wrote:
>
>> Also, if they wanted, couldn't Apple allow 3rd party apps in some
>> fashion, but where it warns the user that installing an unofficial
>> program may do damage to their phone? Or maybe I should get an android
>> phone and support the competition. . .
>>
>
> If you ignore the "security" issue that people float around, there
> is also one very good reason for Apple to not do that: Market Share.
> Right now, they can have offical Apple-produced applications and stop
> third-party applications in those fields from the get-go.
>
> And truthfully, unoffical leaks of how to unlock your iPhone *is*
> Apple's way of allowing 3rd party applications while also stating it is
> an unofficial program that may do damage to their phone, and that by
> simply preparing to install it you are voiding the warranty.
>
> Truthfully, the Android platform isn't all that open. It has an open
> development environment, but it isn't open in the sense that you can't
> replace any product that ships with it with a third-party product. You
> can not, in any real sense, "use the product how you see fit." This is
> less a matter of security than it is a matter that the US government
> controls the airways.
>
Every time I install an app on my Nokia S60 phone, it wants me to check
the certificate the app is signed with. I can make it allow untrusted
certificates, but I've never found an app that was unsigned in the first
place. I cringe when I install Google's (closed-source) mail and maps
applications, but the utility outweighs the fear. I really should get
into S60 development (it's open source now!) and write my own. It would
be a good exercise in both open source dev and embedded dev.
> And the US government *does* control the airways. In particular the FCC.
> In the common case, the standard Internet wireless protocols can use
> additional channels outside of the US. In the US, some of the spectrum
> is used by the US military. In another case, simply listening to some
> radio channels is restricted, as you can not legally listen to police
> channels in a car.
>
I wonder why the government hasn't moved to encrypting the radio traffic
it needs kept secret. Digital two-way radio is a mature technology and
shouldn't be that much more expensive (though I can see why it would
be). Encryption would be the next logical step. You can't keep people
from listening to the airwaves any more than you can keep people from
reading phone system repair manuals (blue boxes, anyone?).
> Now, imagine a person has a simple phone-sized device that can
> truthfully freely access the airways. Police channels via your bluetooth
> headset? Some cell phones actually include AM/FM radios. It isn't that
> far-fetched. Ignoring the military frequencies, you also have purposes
> for such a device which could include simple cell phone jamming. If
> anyone could have an easy hand-held cell phone jammer then not only
> would it be common for folks to have them in movie theaters, but
> virtually any criminal worth their salt would have one.
>
The movie theaters and prisons are very eager to have their own
cell-phone jammers. The problem is the jamming signal leaks and affects
the service of innocent bystanders. Keeping that problem under control
is rightfully under the FCC's charter.
I think movie theaters should be built with materials that passively
block the cell signal, but that is probably prohibitively expensive.
Also, it could be life-threatening if a doctor was on-call while
watching a movie (but you shouldn't have plans when you're on-call).
Prisons are an even trickier case, because law enforcement wants to be
able to tap the illicit phone calls. If they block the signal, they lose
a good source of intelligence.
> This is why I'm actually headed toward getting an open
> mobile-internet-device connected via bluetooth to a closed-platform cell
> phone.
>
My Nokia n810 tethers to my Nokia cellphone with minimal configuration.
I'm still working on connecting my laptop to the cellphone via the USB
cable, but I'm close. I'll post about that when I get it working.
> I want a fully open hand-held device, but it does not have to be the
> same device that uses the cell-phone network, and I do not require my
> wireless device's firmware to be open.
>
I've heard good things about the Freerunner. If you do need a completely
open device, that would be it.
-Barry
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
No comments:
Post a Comment