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.)

From now on I want to be called a prescient goal post moving douche bag with an agenda.

Bakafish

Funny!

But if you've spent time around Israelis you already know that NOTHING is impossible for an Israeli.

Windhawk

@jesusdiaz: don't hate.

froggy

strider_mt2k

We thought this was significant as presented by Ynet. Then we discovered it was not.

Jesus Diaz

Enough already.

Stitzen

strider_mt2k

Lorticon

rfmd486

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

Except R. Kelly.

(allegedly)

92BuickLeSabre

Lorticon

Bakafish

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.

Jesus Diaz

froggy

froggy

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

drewheyman

jrubzer

Mr. Black

"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.

Jesus Diaz

KAb00m

Windhawk

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.

trackpad

trackpad

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.

trackpad

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.

Bakafish

strider_mt2k

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.

Jesus Diaz

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.

Jesus Diaz

jrubzer

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

Hvedhrungr

"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.

Bakafish

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.

Jesus Diaz

aussie

Geezuss.

Jesus Diaz

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.

Bakafish

FYI:

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

Jesus Diaz

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

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.

trackpad

SnowingCookies

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

Jesus Diaz

daftrok

Thunderous_Thor

Hvedhrungr