With the latest jailbreaking code, blacksn0w, now available for Geohot's blackra1n utility, iPhone owners who want to free their favorite smartphone from the constraints of the App Store and the AT&T network may do so. But a recent report by PCWorld / Network World indicates that Apple is hiring a new "sheriff" to lock up the iPhone platform for good. Is this true? Maybe not.

According to the post by Network World blogger John Cox, an Apple corporate website is showing a job posting for an iPhone platform security manager. The manager would lead a team aimed at creating methods for secure booting and installation of the iPhone OS, strengthening the platform's cryptographic services, partitioning and hardening internal security domains, and providing risk analysis of security threats.

The post goes on to breathlessly state that this job posting (which is noted as filling an existing position, not creating a new one) is indicative of Apple's concern that enterprise users might jailbreak and unlock their iPhones. The jailbroken phones would let enterprise users load apps that could "threaten corporate data or back-end Exchange servers," and "unlocking the phone... makes it hard to track, monitor and optimize wireless costs and could open the enterprise to legal problems."

Why is it so important for Apple to crack down on jailbreaking and unlocking? Well, the post says that many enterprises are adopting the iPhone "despite the fact that Apple provides virtually no security or management infrastructure..." That last statement is a bit ridiculous, considering that Apple even provides a series of white papers on exactly how to implement secure, managed iPhone deployments in enterprises.

Perhaps the author has been out the enterprise world for a while, since alterations like jailbreaking and unlocking are forbidden by policy in almost all big businesses that provide their employees with phones. As Mike Rose put it succinctly, "What enterprise user is jailbreaking their phone to use T-Mobile when that means they won't get reimbursed for their cell costs? What enterprise user wants to risk getting cut off from Exchange access?" And what enterprise employee is going to risk his or her good graces with the corporate security team for the sake of being able to run SplatCam or Cycorder on the iPhone?

The post tries to tie the rather innocuous task of filling an open job posting to an attempt by Apple to try to shut off the jailbreak world -- which, if it is doing, isn't necessarily about covering corporate requirements. As long as there are people who want to jailbreak their phones or unlock and move them to a different GSM carrier, hackers will find a way to do it. To us, it appears that Apple is just trying to maintain and improve security for the iPhone platform, something that will benefit all iPhone owners.

The ever-determined band at iPhone Dev have updated their "PwnageTool" to include the 3.1.2 release of the iPhone software for iPhone 2G/3G/3GS and iPod Touch 1G/2G (note that the iPod touch 3G is NOT supported).

Jailbreaking, which is different than "unlocking", allows different applications to be run other than the ones available at the App Store, and also allows for some additional functionality such as background process for third party applications. I assume that those who are interested in jailbreaking are already familiar with it enough to know what the 'dangers' are.

For the idly curious, I highly recommend that you check out the webpage and think about whether you really need the functionality it offers. Notably, this will not allow for things like internet tethering on a carrier that doesn't officially support it. The iPhone Dev folks suggest that you remain at 3.0 until a hack for that is developed.

Albuquerque TV Reporter Jeremy Jojola recently used a jailbroken iPhone and Qik [iTunes link] to broadcast a story live for KOB-TV.

It's a far cry from the big trucks with microwave antennas and satellite dishes that are usually seen where news stories are broadcast.

The audio and video quality isn't perfect, but it shows how fast the technology is moving. Jeremy told me he used the AT&T 3G network for the connection.

We've already reported on the Qik app which was recently updated to allow uploading of video using the 3G network, but so far, the live capability has been nixed by Apple/AT&T. The only way to get the full benefit of live streaming is by jailbreaking the iPhone.

Qik runs on a huge variety of other smartphones with full live capability, even on the AT&T network.

If you'd like to see Jeremy's story, it's available by clicking the Read More link below. The actual story is about iPhone developers who live in the area. Here's Jeremy's blog with some more info.

[Via Poynter Institute online]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has posted the news that Apple has filed comments with the US Copyright Office stating that the act of jailbreaking your iPhone is a copyright infringement and a DMCA violation, and therefore illegal. The EFF says that Apple is claiming that jailbreak apps still require modified versions of Apple's software, and Apple apparently believes that those versions are infringing on their copyrights.

The EFF responds, in turn, that "reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software," saying that yes, even though jailbreakers are using Apple's copyrighted code, they are doing so in a way that allows them functionality that Apple doesn't provide access to on their own.

At this point, of course, this is just a complaint in the copyright office, and Apple hasn't made any legal moves yet against anyone responsible for jailbreaking. As the EFF states, it would be extremely hard for them to go after individual jailbreakers -- if you buy an iPhone, it should be your right to "get under the hood," as they say, and do what you want.

But (and keep in mind that this is TUAW, not The Unofficial Legal Weblog, and we are not lawyers) it seems Apple may be able to try and make a case against anyone offering software that does modify or otherwise "misuse" their copyrighted code. We'll have to see if they explore that position more in the future. You can read Apple's full response here (27 pages). You can see the EFF's initial filings here.

Stay tuned for more news and analysis on the issue.