I’m co-moderating a retreat with John Palfrey about the future of privacy, and one of the morning provocateurs was Hal Abelson. He mused back on the days of SAFE — a campaign against a U.S. government proposal for a “Clipper Chip” that would permit, with a warrant, the government to gain access to encrypted data without the permission of the keyholder(s). Hal supported SAFE, but today said that the best ways to implement the values of privacy aren’t so much in worrying about who has access to what data, but how the data is used. If that’s the case, I asked, have you rethought your support of SAFE? To my surprise, Hal said yes: at least in a place under the rule of law, the ways to protect privacy are through process rather than through technology that cannot be broken, even if the process is followed. That’s a very interesting shift from the days when Hal and I were among five people teaching a course on the legal and technical architectures of cyberspace. Read more »
After praising the iPhone as wholesome as warm bread, Colbert takes to task the iPhone for its “kill switch” (”It actually kills you!”). In the meantime, Gizmodo reports that there’s a “BossPrefs” app to disable it, joining the more labor intensive method of tricking the iPhone into thinking that the Apple update server is found on the phone itself. (Hat tip: Patrick Meier.) Both require that the phones be “jailbroken” — untethered from Apple’s control — currently a somewhat unstable and scary process that many have nonetheless tried. A jailbroken phone can run apps from sources other than the iPhone apps store; hence the ability to install BossPrefs despite its absence there.
Of course, to completey untether the iPhone from Apple can greatly reduce its functionality — and it gives Apple the practical option to reassert control over jailbroken phones by forcing owners to decide between complete isolation or a return to the sandbox.
I’ve got an iPhone myself now and love it — and don’t find myself yet prepared to try to jailbreak it …
…JZ