Teenage Talent

Teenage hacker unlocks the iPhone

A New Jersey teenager has unlocked the iPhone, opening the way to Apple's iconic mobile telephone being used by non-US networks.

The Associated Press news agency confirmed George Hotz, 17, had unlocked the iPhone and used it on T-Mobile, a rival to its sole US operator, AT&T.

The hacker says the unlocking takes about two hours and involves some soldering and skill with software.

AT&T and Apple have not yet commented on the news.

Hackers and security researchers have been poring over Apple's much-coveted phone since its launch in the US in June in an effort to discover vulnerabilities in the handset.

Top of their list has been cracking the code that ties the phone to AT&T, the iPhone's exclusive network.

Before George Hotz's announcement on his blog, the iPhone was made to work on overseas networks using another method, which involves copying information from the Sim (Subscriber Identity Module) card.

However, special equipment was needed and the actual phone was not unlocked, with each Sim card having to be reprogrammed for use on a particular iPhone.

Analysts believe Apple may still have time to modify the iPhone production line to make new phones invulnerable to the hacks before the iPhone's expected European launch later this year.

Collaboration

The young hacker says he hopes phone-owners can eventually unlock their phones by themselves, and that he hopes his discovery will not be exploited for commercial gain.

"That's exactly, like, what I don't want... people making money off this," he told AP.

The next step, he said, would be a non-solder solution: a way to unlock the phone using software alone.

Technology blog Engadget said on Friday that it had successfully unlocked an iPhone using a different method that required no tinkering with the hardware. The software was supplied by an anonymous group of hackers that apparently plans to charge for it, AP reports.

The agency notes that both the Hotz and Sim techniques leave the iPhone's many functions intact apart from its "visual voicemail" feature, which shows voice messages as if they are incoming e-mail.

The New Jersey hacker says he collaborated online with four other people, two of them in Russia, to develop the unlocking process.

He spent about 500 hours on the project since the launch on 29 June.

"Some of my friends think I wasted my summer but I think it was worth it," he told US newspaper The Record of Bergen County.

___

I was surprised to read that a seventeen year old teenager managed to get past the safety locks of a major technology company. He is a mere seventeen year old individual against an entire established company otherwise known by many as Apple. Yet, he managed to get past the codes that prevented the iPhone from using any other service provider but AT&T.

This work is no doubt the work of a genius. George Hotz may not be a “genius”, in the absolute sense of the word, but still it needed a fair amount of skill, ability and talent to get past the codes set by a major company. Credit goes to him. Teenagers like him are living prove of how much talent there is in our next generation today. In Singapore’s context the picture is not too different. Though there are not such bold attempts by individuals to pit their skills against an entire company, the talent pool and fields are increasing.

Yet what strikes me the most is this teenager’s guts and courage to dare to unlock the codes of Apple’s iPhone and go public about it. For one, I am sure George Hotz knows fully that this act could bring lawsuits against him, especially since it is against a major company. This is because such an act – of having a seventeen year old unlock the codes of Apple – undermines the ability of Apple. It makes a mockery of and is damaging to its public image. These factors were surely taken into account when he decided to go public with his work. Yet, he still did so and this shows the guts that these teenagers have today. The last question then would be who were to pay for any financial costs incurred from the lawsuits that are sure to follow? Surely, it would be his parents. Had he not considered this before doing such a seemingly brave act or even deciding to go public about it? Is he rich enough to handle the financial costs?

The problem with teenagers are that they do not think before they act. They do not stop and consider whether what they are doing is a right or not. Many often follow their friends in the blind believe that it is “cool” to do such things. Without this maturity to control oneself, it becomes dangerous. All the talent we see in our youths today can be blown away in act of folly, an act that they did not stop to think about. In Singapore, we may not see such daring attempts, but quietly we do know similar acts can and do land teenagers in hot soup. One example is the illegal downloading of music.

While we see the talent that our youths hold today, the older generation must not celebrate too early. Guidance is still needed to ensure that youths understand the risk of acting without thinking. Only then, can we ensure that the talents in youths are properly made use of.

(498 words)

Human ethics .vs. Religious ethics

Organ Act change to save 10 lives a year

Salma Khalik, Health Correspondent Sun, Aug 26, 2007
The Straits Times

BRINGING Muslims under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota) can lead to as many as 10 lives saved a year, said the Ministry of Health (MOH) yesterday.

The legislative process to amend the Act will start in November and is expected to be wrapped up by early next year.

This means that Muslims, like other Singaporeans, will be considered as having consented to having their organs harvested when they die - unless they opt out.

Muslims are now not covered by Hota, introduced in 1987, as it was deemed contrary to their beliefs. They had to opt in if they wanted to be donors.

An edict from Muslim leaders in July changed all that, as it declared organ donation a life-saving gesture in line with Islamic teachings.

MOH expects to get five Muslim cadaveric donors a year, giving up five hearts and five livers to people who need them. It also means that 10 more kidneys and 10 more corneas would be available.

Last year, 15 people were taken off the liver waiting list and four off the heart list because they could not get the organs in time and had either died, become too old or too sick for a transplant.

'Every life saved is important,' said Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, speaking to reporters yesterday at the WaterFest by the Bay.

For the 555 people whose kidneys have failed, the change will mean a shorter wait than the nine years facing them today.

It will have a bigger impact on Muslims, now that the effects of the opt-in process have become clear for all to see. Of the 300,000 eligible Muslims, only 16,000 have pledged their organs.

As priority for organs is given to those who agreed to be donors, the backlog of Muslims awaiting transplants started growing longer. Those who signed on when their organs started failing had to sit out two years before getting on the wait list.

Last year, Muslims made up 21 per cent of patients waiting for a kidney, but only 16 per cent of those who received one. Madam Halimah Yacob, head of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Health, called the move a 'logical development and a necessity'.

'Judging by the long queue of those seeking donors, our experience with the opting-in route has failed,' she said.

She will be holding forums to explain Hota to Muslims who want to know, for example, the definition of 'brain dead''. MOH defines this as someone who 'will never wake up nor regain consciousness' and whose heart will stop once he is taken off artificial support.

Mr Khaw wants six weeks of public consultation to get support for Hota. He also wants feedback on proposals to give more power to MOH to investigate possible organ trading, which is illegal here. Now, only the police can do so.

The Sunday Times understands that someone had tried to sell a kidney on the Net in 2004. The person was identified and issued a letter of warning.

Mr Khaw also indicated that he might make changes to rules regarding living wills or Advance Medical Directive next year, to make it easier for people to declare that they do not want their lives prolonged by artificial means if they fall terminally ill.

The Straits Times reported yesterday that so far, more than 6,000 people have signed living wills, with 3,486 in the last two years alone - a figure which 'pleasantly surprised'' Mr Khaw.

'It's better to let your family know your preference, instead of letting them decide and maybe getting into a quarrel,' he said.

__

This issue on whether Muslims should donate their organs by law has been debated on many times. Previously, Muslims were allowed to follow their religious beliefs and they were not required by law to donate their organs. However, the Ministry of Health recently changed the system, to automatically require all Muslims to donate their organs, unless they opt out of it. It is now said to be in line with the teachings of Islam.

The question is how does one decide whether it is ethical to pass a law if it coincides with a religious belief or practice. The first problem arises because there are “universal” ethics that basically apply to all mankind and there are religious ethics. While the believers in a religion say it is unethical to perform a certain act because it goes against their beliefs, others feel it is unethical to not save a person’s life. The act of saving a person’s life is a humanitarian issue. It is an ethical issue that many say is a basic human right. As for the believers in a religion, they have their own set of rules and ethics. The difference between the religious ethics and the human ethics is that these religious ethics only apply to the believers of a religion.

From this, the second problem arises. Which ethic, the basic human ethics or religious ethics, should the government follow? On one hand, the government should follow the basic human ethics because the government should not believe in a single religion. On the other hand, however, it cannot discount the rights of its people, in this case the religious ethics that its people choose to follow.

Fortunately for the government, religious groups are willing to re-look their take on an issue. As the government today has more power over the religious groups, they are willing to accept that their religious ethics come second to basic human ethics. This is further made possible because the line between human ethics and religious ethics have begun to fade. For one, these so called basic human ethics are partly decided by religious beliefs. In the past, people look to religion for moral support and they realize that such a teaching is in fact a basic right as a human. Hence, religious followers believe that these basic human ethics are actually in line with their religion’s ethics. It helps that the religious writings are open for interpretation. Hence, it allows religious leaders to interpret their teachings in a different way. Where previously, something was thought to be against their teachings, from a different angle, it may not be so. They can hence have a different take on their religious ethics.

With these factors, religious groups have begun to first follow the basic human ethics and then their personal religious believes. This is the case when Muslim leaders agreed that donating their organs would be a life-saving act that is in line with their teachings.

(491 words)