Its "bundled" in that you must use AT&T. They come together in the US. Its locked.
I'm not picking on AT&T specifically, and Im not sure why you are rushing to thier defense. I would pick on whoever the provider is, and whoever chose them. yea, yea, CDMA, GSM... I was a VoiceStream GSM customer long before they were bought by Cingular and lastly AT&T. But this is not an excuse. AT&T has been burned on thier UserAgent schenegans in the past - so this instance is not excusable. Goatse did nothing inovative here. They reused old data about AT&T mobile device practices. -- ME2 On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Mayo, Bill <[email protected]>wrote: > It is not a bundled service. The iPad uses a "standard" Micro-SIM card > slot, into which you can place a Micro-SIM card from any provider that will > allow you to do so. In the United States (not the only country in the > world), the only provider to provide a plan for this device is AT&T. Unlike > the iPhone, I have heard nothing to suggest this is an exclusive agreement > in the U.S.; it is more a problem that most U.S. providers use CDMA instead > of GSM. It is true that Apple chose GSM to the exclusion of CDMA. As far > as why they chose AT&T in the first place, it is pretty well documented that > AT&T was the only provider that would play ball with them (i.e. releasing > some of their control over the handset). > > To reiterate, though, it is not a bundled service. You can buy a > cellular-enabled iPad with no service. Even if you choose to use AT&T's > service, it is month to month. And, if you live anywhere in the world other > than the US, there are lots of providers that support Micro-SIM and > GSM--it's merely a question of whether or not they choose to offer the > service. > > Finally, from what I understand about this breach, the problem was that the > attacker was able to predict the ICC-IDs and were then able to send that > data to a poorly written web page hosted by AT&T. There is nothing there > that suggests to me that they couldn't have used similar techniques to find > out info on nearly anyone that had an AT&T data (or maybe even voice) plan. > And who's to say that they didn't? They may just be keeping that in their > back pocket. > > While this is a bad thing, it is not uncommon, and the amount of data > exposed is relatively modest at least. If you think Verizon or any other > provider is immune to having a crappy programmer or lax security somewhere, > you will inevitably be disappointed. It's kind of like BP right now. They > are being exposed for poor practices and possible negligence on many fronts > presently, and they deserve everything they get. However, if anyone thinks > that every other oil company isn't doing the same thing, they are naive. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2010 2:05 PM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: AT&T/iPad security breach > > Its a boundled service. I'm not saying that they should be held > specifically accountable - but they share some level of fault here. Assign > blame or not, there is a fault for them in who they chose as thier service > provider. > > Bill, I think your suggestion is backwards, and no, I dont think its fair > for it to work that way. But if Apple relies on inadequate service/etc, > then yes, I think they are accountable to a degree. > > -- > ME2 > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Mayo, Bill <[email protected]>wrote: > >> By that rationale, everyone that offers a phone for AT&T is guilty of a >> security lapse. That would be, well, everybody, right? >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2010 1:40 PM >> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >> *Subject:* Re: AT&T/iPad security breach >> >> Good question, but both really... It appears to be an AT&T breach, >> but as you know it specifically effects the iPad. >> >> But, I beleive Apple fails here as well for he provider that they chose to >> host thier equipment and services with. >> >> -- >> ME2 >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Rod Trent <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> iPad or AT&T? >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2010 1:20 PM >>> >>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >>> *Subject:* Re: AT&T/iPad security breach >>> >>> >>> >>> No doubt. It was pre-destined to be a major target. >>> >>> -- >>> ME2 >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Don Guyer <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Only a matter of time, no shock there. >>> >>> >>> >>> Don Guyer >>> >>> Systems Engineer - Information Services >>> >>> Prudential, Fox & Roach/Trident Group >>> >>> 431 W. Lancaster Avenue >>> >>> Devon, PA 19333 >>> >>> Direct: (610) 993-3299 >>> >>> Fax: (610) 650-5306 >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:57 PM >>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >>> *Subject:* AT&T/iPad security breach >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.google.com/search?q=ipad+security+breach >>> >>> -- >>> ME2 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
