Now wait until they realize they can actually make money with that trick.
This is getting tedious...

Oh god, I thought for a moment that the Giz would post ten stories in a row with non-iPhone references. This is the first time my heart has been racing this much since the last iPhone post I read seven minutes ago.

First off: stfu Thor.
Second off: I wonder how long it will take Apple to open up the iPhone to other phone companies.
Third off: Why is it so freaking easy to hack the iPhone?

Actually, the question you should ask is: are all unlock methods real?

Only three of the unlocking methods have been independently tested by multiple people through the world: forged SIM, Turbo SIM and hardware soldering.

wah? Who did you say designed the security on the Apple iPhone? Microsoft, ATT or Apple... no one?

I don't think it's a matter of the iPhone being particularly easy to hack. Apple has a vested interest in keeping the device locked to AT&T's net. It's also been over a month since the launch...I think most people are in fact surprised that it has taken this long.

What you're seeing here more than "weak security" is the indomitable force of the human nerd spirit, and proof once again that if it is made by man, it can be broken by man. (see DeCSS, AACS, Plays4Sure, FairPlay, etc..).

There are also a lot of market forces driving these efforts, all of the alleged software unlocks are (so far) retail only.

Anyone can claim anything, where is the bloody journalistic rigor? Even the Engadget claim is unconfirmed by any outside source or credible hack vector and therefore suspect. The claims of AT&T suing the other outfit, whom have a track record of lying I might add, are also totally based on the sole word of those who have lied previously. In fact, they never directly stated it was AT&T just so they could have deniability in case someone was able to get an answer from AT&T about this. Posting a real cease and desist is legal, but posting a fake one will get you sued. Wonder why they don't put up some evidence? As for the Engadget people, they could have been far more forthcoming with their test conditions and environment and it would have given the hack more credibility. At this point the software only hack they claim to have seen first hand may have been a very clever hoax. Without knowing all the preconditions it is hard to know what form it may have taken, but as John Gruber states, "... if it's not released, how does that qualify as 'done'? Wake me up when it's released."

After getting bored reading all these unfounded claims, I managed a full software unlock by using my iPhone to call my TRS-80's 300 baud rocket modem. By typing all the unlock spells from my extensive Harry Potter official spells guide (3rd. edition) I was finally able to get a full unlock (with visual voice mail on my carrier CellularONE!) I was also able to activate the hidden 3G high-speed data feature, but my battery life is down by 24.7% I was going to release the magic incantation required, but an owl showed up with a restraining order from J.K. Rawlings. I hope I at least get a front page post on Gizmodo about my full ownage and leetness.

@Bakafish: Can your read the article? We are NOT saying this is true. We are saying that hackers in Israel are claiming this. A newspaper in Israel has reported the news and we are passing them to you, the reader. It may be possible, but we have no proof. The only methods we've personally tried are the Forged SIM and the Turbo SIM. The hardware method has been tested by many others now (you can see the reports on the web, galleries on flickr, etc).

FYI:

claim |klām| verb [ reporting verb ] state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof

I understand, but at this point everyone and their mother is claiming this and the press, Israeli or otherwise, is just "putting it out there." My point is that that is not your job. Your job is to research a claim for corroborative evidence and if none can be found, be very hesitant to publish such claims other than to shine light on the lack of support for such claims. You are press, publishing things gives them legitimacy in many people's eyes, and un-researched stenography gives very little value added and makes you look bad when it all ends up in tears. There are a lot of people who are illegitimately claiming a software unlock betting on someone else getting there first and pulling their ass out of the fire, in the mean time they get publicity from the gullible and uninformed 'journalists' and generate potential leads to market someone else's solution to, once a real software unlock is found. You are enabling this practice, you are simply cutting and pasting without a suitable amount of incredulity, going as far as saying "this would be the fifth time that someone has unlocked the iPhone with a different method." Based on what? An Israeli newspaper article? Seriously?

And FYI:

Using definitions out of the dictionary verbatim to prove your point is kind of childish and unprofessional. You have no idea who I am, but at least give me credit to understand the English language and possession of a dictionary. I criticize you guys because I like this site and I think you can do better. Attempting to follow up with AT&T was the right thing for you to do, that's the kind of research your readership appreciates. However, just swallowing the crap that others spew and posting it on your site, implying it may be credible but unwilling to do any legwork to actually verify the claim is not.

And you are misquoting the post to prove what point again?

Geezuss.

@Bakafish: You're right. But I unlocked my iPhone with a paper-clip and two sticks of gum - just like Macgyver would do.

Cute.

Well, check the new unlocking method. Just published and tested. It uses two pins, cork and a piece of cable.

That's funny, MacGyver. But real.

Okay, let me start from the headline of your post.

"Israeli Hackers 100% Unlock the iPhone Yet Again, AT&T Shrugs"

You wrote that. Anyone reading that would be led to believe two things:

1) That Gizmodo is saying that there has been (another) unique vector of iPhone unlock.

2) That AT&T (actually at&t now I believe.)
  a) Is not doing anything about this specific hack.
  b) Actually did send a C&D to "iPhone Unlocking"

You then go on to say that, "If confirmed, this would be the fifth time that someone has unlocked the iPhone with a different method." This is not a misquote, that is what you said. There are only 3 confirmed methods in the wild, sim hacks and the iPhone hardware hack. The other two are as of yet vaporware, one of which has some plausible support by way of Engadget, the other is making the ludicrous claim being spread all over the internet, and baselessly endorsed by such things as your headline, that at&t issued a C&D, over the phone...at 3am... on a Sunday... Please, this doesn't happen. You guys have gotten C&D's before, they never come over a phone there is always a hardcopy, and they would have some legal basis for it. This whole at&t thing is a lie to cover the fact that they have no real solution, they never have had a solution and they won't have a solution until someone else does and they can steal that and market it to the 40,000 poor saps that gave them their contact info. So by that count, how would this be the fifth?

My complaint, if I haven't made it perfectly clear, is that you clearly are lending credence to several unfounded claims. You are, by implication, saying that despite any evidence, at&t actually sent a C&D to these people. Despite listing only three in the wild unlock solutions, you imply that there have been four different previously successful unlock procedures. And lastly your headline seems grossly misleading making three more unfounded contentions:
  That the Israeli's were 100% successful.
  That at&t did send a C&D to "iPhone Unlocking"
  Despite pursuing "iPhone Unlocking", at&t is uninterested in the Israeli group.

I would have preferred to see some skepticism of these claims at this point, but instead you complain that I'm misquoting you and don't understand the meaning of 'claim.' How does this posting inform your readership, what are they supposed to think? I claim it is a total myth that at&t ever sent any communication whatsoever to the "iPhone Unlocking" group. I suspect that they never had a software unlock. There is absolutely no compelling reason to believe the Israelis' (who I believe simply did the iPhone hardware hack and fooled a gullible uninformed reporter.) I'd also be very wary without more corroborative evidence that the Engadget group may have been hoaxed. They should know better, but there has been no full disclosure of the complete environment and parameters of the unlock, and so in fairness to your readers, this skepticism should be spelled out.

But hey, it's your credebility. You can say whatever you want, I just wish for a little more old fashioned journalistic integrity.

I have to agree with Bakafish in that while it may be somewhat entertaining to read repeated claims of unlocked iPhones here and there and in Israel, I come to gizmodo for the hard info as much as for the funny stories. Probably more.
At the very least, put Rumour atop of the article instead of Breaking.

Also, paperclips and chewing gum beat cork and cable any day of the week.

Dubious nature of the claims aside, the photo is annoying. I love the Rebels v. Empire theme, but truth be told the majority of people who look like your "Israeli" in the pic are more likely immigrants from Borough Park Brooklyn. Get your ethnic stereotypes straight.

@bakafish: Fair enough comment on the headline. It could be misleading, I'll change it.

But sorry, on the rest you are absolutely wrong. The post is more than hedged, saying that these are the claims of these people, completely unproven.

You are just irritated for some reason I can't comprehend. You are tired of reading about these claims? Good. Don't read them. Skip over them. It's easy.

You misquoted me leaving out the "if confirmed" from your arguments. You tried to mispresent the article while everyone can read it. You also minimized the fact that all the post refers to THEIR claims, unproven, untested.

This has nothing to do with my credibility. If anything, it's their credibility. I'm reporting on the claims of someone as relayed by an Israeli newspaper. The fact that they may be one of the groups that lurk in the Dev IRC channel adds some weight to that report, but then again, I am not a judge. I just report on what people say. I don't have to contrast the information because I am not trying to prove them right or not.

Simple as that. I suggest you get back to Journalism 101.

Talkin about claims: you are also claiming that AT&T never said anything to iPhone Unlocking. What proof do you have on this? Now THAT is speculation and badmouthing, without proof.

AT&T has clearly told us that they are not commenting on any legal actions or speculation. They could have easily tell us that "we didn't call them, these guys are deluded or lying". What makes you think iPhone Unlocking is lying about it? Maybe they are lying about the fact that they have the unlock (I don't believe they have it) but maybe AT&T doesn't give a shit about that and did a preemptive strike.

They said no comment. No "this guys are morons."

So where's your proof about that? Maybe the so-called "integrity" you are talking about doesn't apply to you? Is badmouthing a company - no matter if they could be a band of mercenaries - without any proof whatsoever, acceptable because you are convinced about it? Or are you free of your own idea of integrity because you are not writing in Gizmodo?

Maybe you are. But it doesn't stop making you look like a douche bag.

@JRUBZER: of course not every jewish people look like that. It's supposed to be funny, like when I put myself in a pic as a toreador. Not everyone in spain are bullfighters, but that doesn't stop me taking the piss of my own stereotypes.

We do this all the time in Gizmodo and it has no malice whatsoever. Like when Woody Allen depicts the idea of jewish people in his films using ortodox aesthetic.

I think I spot a dick, Gizmodo...

You misquoted me leaving out the "if confirmed" from your arguments. You tried to mispresent the article while everyone can read it. You also minimized the fact that all the post refers to THEIR claims, unproven, untested.

It was the the fact that you implied four previous confirmed unlock methods in that sentence I was complaining about. I attempted to clarify that was my complaint in a follow up post. The "if confirmed" was irrelevant to that point, but I understand your confusion and I apologize for not being clear (and forgetting to prepend the ellipsis.)

This has nothing to do with my credibility. If anything, it's their credibility. I'm reporting on the claims of someone as relayed by an Israeli newspaper. The fact that they may be one of the groups that lurk in the Dev IRC channel adds some weight to that report, but then again, I am not a judge. I just report on what people say. I don't have to contrast the information because I am not trying to prove them right or not.
Simple as that.

I suggest you get back to Journalism 101.

That doesn't make you a reporter, it makes you a stenographer or marketing agent. You are in the unique position to bring clarity to your readership by applying your knowledge, reasoning and research abilities to place a story in it's proper context. To inform, not cut and paste. I expect that when you attended Journalism 101 they may have mentioned those things. But I should probably look up the word in my dictionary as I apparently lack any clue.

Talkin about claims: you are also claiming that AT&T never said anything to iPhone Unlocking. What proof do you have on this? Now THAT is speculation and badmouthing, without proof.
AT&T has clearly told us that they are not commenting on any legal actions or speculation. They could have easily tell us that "we didn't call them, these guys are deluded or lying". What makes you think iPhone Unlocking is lying about it? Maybe they are lying about the fact that they have the unlock (I don't believe they have it) but maybe AT&T doesn't give a shit about that and did a preemptive strike.

I feel bad that you have become so defensive and threatened by me that you would feel forced to take this position. I obviously have no first hand knowledge wether or not at&t sent a C&D, but seriously all the evidence would say no.

1) C&D's are never done over the phone, there is always a paper trail.
2) They never proved it was actually at&t, it could have been me on the phone (if anyone actually called) which is why anyone in their right mind would expect paperwork.
3) These were the same people collecting contacts and IMSI numbers by claiming that they had already unlocked "thousands" of iPhone's several months ago.
4) They now are saying on their blog, "Also, would the OMM lawyer who phoned us, please call back today. We have a few questions now that we're awake." That's credible (and professional), they don't have contact information? Heh, yeah.
5) Unlocking is a legally protected action and is not blockable by a C&D, nor is it likely that independently developed software is infringing on at&t copyrights.
6) No one else has had similar contact, despite being in similar states of development.

These are the kinds of things I would expect you to look into and elaborate on. This, although speculation, would be informative to your readership. I'm not, as I assume you are, getting payed to do this, so I don't claim to be a Journalist, but I guess you aren't either.

So where's your proof about that? Maybe the so-called "integrity" you are talking about doesn't apply to you? Is badmouthing a company - no matter if they could be a band of mercenaries - without any proof whatsoever, acceptable because you are convinced about it? Or are you free of your own idea of integrity because you are not writing in Gizmodo?

Um, isn't saying that at&t is the evil empire responsible for depriving the huddled masses of their unlock software sort of the same thing? As for implying that you have integrity and I don't because you happen to write for Gizmodo, well I never called you a "douche bag." Oh wait, I miss quoted you, I only look like a douche bag.

I couldn't agree more with Bakafish. You've hit the nail on the head.

Both Engadget, and now to a degree also Gizmodo have given *way* too much credence to these claims. I am in fact really surprised and really disappointed by the lack of research and due diligence behind what gets posted on these two leading tech blogs.

I have tried a few times to get comments from Ryan or Sean at Engadget as to why they have taken these claims so seriously, but to no avail. I guess at the end of the day everyone just wants to be first. And unlike a newspaper, there is no "retractions" page where anyone has to own up to false or misleading info in the aftermath. It's just on to the next... It kinda makes me pine for real journalism.

Anyhoo. Jesus Diaz this image was awesome, as are most of your images. You are an editorial artist to be reckoned with.

Oh, and re: the israeli kids - it could be that they just have Turbosims or silvercards,...this, combined with having converted a lot of the text strings in their phones to Hebrew would probably be enough to convince a hometown newspaper reporter not schooled in the nuisances between hard/soft unlocking that they had "done it".

BAKAFISH = Voice of Reason.

I think you'll have to look into that journalism 101 thing. Backafish is on the money here, sorry guys but you dropped the ball.

Better to admit it, learn from it, apologize and move on. You can take some comfort in knowing that Engadget blew it an entire order of magnitude worse than you did. Little comfort your readers however.

It could be fun to re-write this post as a real journalist would. Just so you guys could see it. I'm on deadline, otherwise I might take a pass at it.

@strider_mt2k: I love the smell of banhammer in the morning.

Screw the iphone look at those GIRLS.

Wrong again.

"It was the the fact that you implied four previous confirmed unlock methods in that sentence I was complaining about."

I am not implying four previous confirme efforts. I'm saying it loud and clear: there are FOUR unlocking methods, three tested by everyone and their dog, one tested by Engadget (I don't have any reason to doubt Engadget's reporting, unless you are saying they are lying and you have proof, rather than spewing another diatribe).

You can read about them here, in case you have missed the news.

"I attempted to clarify that was my complaint in a follow up post. The "if confirmed" was irrelevant to that point"

The "if confirmed" is totally relevant. It clearly states that this could be the fifth method if confirmed. How can that not be relevant to the converstion. Your whole original "argument" is that this post lacks "credibility" because I am reporting something that somebody is saying without making an investigation.

In case you haven't noticed, sometimes we report on our news, other times we report on other people's news. That's why we said things like "claim", "according to", "they said" and then link to the source.

I obviously have no first hand knowledge wether or not at&t sent a C&D, but seriously all the evidence would say no.

Speculation again.

Maybe they are lying, maybe they are not. They never claimed a C&D. Maybe AT&T lawyers called with a warning. One thing is as possible as the other one. Again, AT&T could have simple said: "not true." They didn't confirmed it in one way or another.

Therefore, you are are still making assumptions and badmouthing these people based in speculation (again, I don't believe that they have the unlock, but that doesn't mean AT&T is not going to take action).

Just like you are badmouthing me and Gizmodo.

Regarding the DMCA, do your homework again:

While the DMCA has an exception to protect the second hand phone market, the courts are RULING AGAINST companies who do en-masse unlocking for the purpose of benefiting from it. Companies like TracFone is suing the pants of this kind of companies and winning. That's why they dropped the challenge to the Librarian of Congress exemption rule.

But then, in the case of Unique Phones, this doesn't mean anything because they are located overseas. So in theory, Unique Phones doesn't have to be afraid of any C&D order.

They can be pissing their pants from a call threatening with legal action, which is precisely what they are claiming they got (right or not.)

So again, the whole thing could be a lie or it could be true. I can't confirm it either way because AT&T is saying "no comment on legal actions". I can't confirm their claims either way (and believe me, I would LOVE to prove them wrong because I believe they are lying about the whole software unlock thing - but ONE thing is "believing" and the other is "having proof.")

That's whay we can only say "these guys are saying they have been threatened by AT&T" and "AT&T can't comment on it". Beyond that, everything is speculation and beliefs. It's not my job to second your opinions and speculate that they are wrong. To me, they are innocent until someone proves me otherwise.

Oh, and yes, you still look like a douche bag with an agenda. A goal-post shifting douche bag.

@strider_mt2k: Classic...

fair enough

Did Gizmodo put the hat on that guy?? that's funny!

On another note, I didn't know that Lurch and Sir Bob Geldof were rebel fighters.

@jesusdiaz: @Bakafish: YAWN!!!!

@strider_mt2k: ah... what?! Strider, you are not suggesting that they ban Bakafish because he won't take it lying down, are ya?

@Froggy: Bakafish is not getting banned. He's exposing his point of view. I just don't agree with him.

I believe Strider called him or me a dick. He's not getting banned in either case, because he's funny.

I kind of hate slimy green amphibious animals, though :-)

@Drewheyman: yeah. I didn't saw the Geldof until you pointed out. Funny. I'm afraid that Geldof doesn't belong to the Rebel Alliance, though. If anything, I imagine him as the butler at Jabba's palace.

I was not banned, they don't ban you for disagreeing or criticizing if you are sincere about it, even if you are a goal post moving douche bag with an agenda. I doubt stating my opinion made the overall content less informative though, this is a better article for the flame war IMHO. The headline got changed (thank you) and we at least seem to agree that the "iPhone Unlocking" guys are lying (which may be news to some.) I probably over reacted because I'm so sick and tired of that "at&t stopped us from releasing" meme being perpetuated and I felt he was adding yet another non-credible claim to the pile of claims out there. I felt that a bit more incredulity was called for, but I'll leave it where it stands.

In a pissing contest, there are no winners. But, could you schedule a cat fight Gizmodo?

@Lorticon:

In a pissing contest, there are no winners....

Except R. Kelly.

(allegedly)

Dont you just slide to unlock----> the iPhone? What's all the fuss about?

@92BuickLeSabre: I rest my case.

That's impossible, even for an Israeli!