ผู้เขียน: FlexiSPY

We’re happy to announce that the latest version of FlexiSPY for Android is here! In this release, we really tried to act on the feedback that you guys put forward to us, and we’re very excited about the new offerings! So, what’s changed?

There’s also various other changes and improvements that we didn’t want to squash into this article, so for a more in-depth look into what the latest release gives you, check out our Android Page.

Most of these changes started off as great suggestions by people that have been fans of our software for a long time. If you suggest an improvement for FlexiSPY, we’ll review it, and it could eventually get passed along to our developers. So, why not brainstorm a few things you’d like to see, and leave your thoughts in the comments section below, it’s a win-win for everyone and we’d be delighted to hear from you!

Recently news broke that a group of Chinese hackers successfully released a working jailbreak for iOS 7.1.2 devices. For those who have been holding off on upgrading from iOS 6.x.x because they did not want to lose the jailbreak this is surely welcome news however there are a few questions that need to be asked about this jailbreak and whether it really is legitimate or not.

WHAT IS PANGU?

Pangu is the name of the jailbreaking application for iOS 7.1.2. Currently it is released on Windows only so those who have Macs and wish to jailbreak their iOS 7.1.2 device are currently out of luck. However there are already warning signs as to the legitimacy of the jailbreak before you even download the jailbreak tool – starting with the download URL.

http://dl.pangu.25pp.com/jb/ (this is not the full download link – see below for that)
25pp.com is a well-known Chinese piracy site and the jailbreak application, once downloaded, tries to install spyware in the form of the 25pp iPhone app -the old version does this, the new one contains no spyware- but how is this even possible? If the jailbreak application tries to install spyware how can the actual jailbreak be deemed trustworthy?

As you can see from the screenshot above the UI of the jailbreak tool takes a lot from what we have already seen from evad3rs, the process shouldn’t be too difficult

Below are two guides, one to jailbreak iOS 7.1.2 safely and the other for those who have already jailbroken iOS 7.1.2 using Pangu and want to stop the application from doing whatever nefarious reasons it has to dial out.

HOW TO JAILBREAK IOS 7.1.2 SAFELY

Below are steps to jailbreak IOS 7.1.2 safely without installing any nasty 25pp spyware.

Alternatively you can watch either the Mac or PC video and follow along.

It should be noted that we are not responsible for any damage that may be done to your phone by following this tutorial. Also be aware that you might have to complete the process twice on a 5s, the first attempt, the device will ‘blue screen’, wait for the iPhone to reboot, then re run Pangu on your PC, and follow the guide again.

Step 1- Download and run the Pangu jailbreak from the link below.

Pangu For Mac

Pangu For PC

Step 2 – Run the Pangu jailbreak application in Administrator mode on your PC, and uncheck the box (the most current version of pangu no longer has the option for unchecking the box)

Step 3 – Connect your iPhone or iPad that is running iOS 7.1.2.

Step 4 – This is where things get interesting. The jailbreak tool uses an out of date enterprise certificate for authentication to allow the jailbreak to take place. This means that you need to change the date and time on your iPhone or iPad to June 2nd, 2014 otherwise the jailbreak will not work.

Step 6 – Set the date and time to June 2nd 2014.

Step 7 – Wait for Pangu to check the date is correct and then click the big black button to start the jailbreak and just wait.

Step 8 – As with Evad3rs a new app will appear on the springboard of your device.

Note: If you wait too long before tapping ‘Continue’ or ‘Quit’ a message in red text will appear. If this happens you must start the jailbreak process from the beginning again.

Step 9 – The Pangu app on the PC will continue to jailbreak the device – do not disconnect the device or unplug the device USB cable from your PC.

Step 10 – When the Pangu app looks like this on your PC the jailbreak is complete.

You can verify this also by looking on your device now and seeing the Cydia icon.

THAT’S IT

iOS 7.1.2 is jailbroken.

But what happens if you did all this but forgot to uncheck the checkbox? (If your pangu had the checkbox option)

How to disable 2PP if you have already jailbroken your iOS 7.1.2 device

You have two options:

1 – Restore your phone which will DELETE ALL DATA and rejailbreak the phone using the steps above.

2 – Remove PPSync to stop 2PP from functioning.

To do this, on the now jailbroken iOS 7.1.2 device, go to Cydia. Tap Sources > Manage > Edit > Add.

When asked for the repo name type in http://cydia.angelxwind.net/

Wait for Cydia to update and then tap the new source from the list.

Tap the program titled ‘Install Complete PPSync Remover’.

Run the app to remove the PPSync program from your device and it should be okay.

For those who are wondering PPSync, once installed, can cause device instability and stock apps (e.g. iBooks or Maps) to crash and it generally can affect the performance of your device.

So now you know how to jailbreak iOS 7.1.2 on a Windows PC using Pangu. If you have any questions or comments head over to the jailbreak page of Spy Phone Review which you can find here or leave a comment below.

Worried about your teenager? Who are they hanging out with? What are they doing after school? Is my child being bullied? Is my child into drugs? These are all valid – and common – concerns of a parent. You probably bought your teen a phone – a cute iPhone or a techie android smartphone.

You can put a lot of fears to rest if you know what is going on with your child’s phone. You also can intervene, if necessary, to protect your child.

What are the legal implications of spying on your child’s phone? Can you be sued by your child?

Parent-Child Immunity: Historically, the Doctrine of Parental Immunity barred a child from bringing a claim against her parents. The parental immunity doctrine had its genesis in the United States in Hewellette v. George, 68 Miss. 703, 9 So. 885 (1891), in which a minor daughter was precluded from suing her deceased mother’s estate for damages resulting from mental suffering and injury to her character incurred during her confinement in an asylum for 11 days caused by her mother. The court gave this reason for its holding:

“ ‘The peace of society, and of the families composing society, and a sound public policy, designed to subserve the repose of families and the best interests of society, forbid to the minor child a right to appear in court in the assertion of a claim to civil redress for personal injuries suffered at the hands of the parent. The state, through its criminal laws, will give the minor child protection from parental violence and wrongdoing, and this is all the child can be heard to demand.’

The rule, as set forth in Hewellette is as follows: “So long as the parent is under obligation to care for, guide, and control, and the child is under reciprocal obligation to aid and comfort and obey, no such action as this can be maintained.”

All 50 states, legislatively or judicially (by a decision of the state’s supreme court), adopted the doctrine. California is a state that adopted the immunity judicially (Trudell v. Leatherby (1931) 212 Cal. 678 [300 P. 7] an unemancipated minor child may not maintain an action against his parent for negligence because an action by a child against his parent would “bring discord into the family and disrupt the peace and harmony of the household”).

The End of Parent-Child Immunity: Almost all states have now abandoned absolute parent-child immunity, particularly with respect to intentional torts against the child (i.e., child molestation and abuse). Many states have abrogated the doctrine for negligence claims where there is insurance coverage for the parent’s negligence, and allowing the child’s lawsuit against the parent would not disrupt family harmony, because the claim really lies against the insurance carrier for the parent (i.e., allowing automobile negligence lawsuits – now commonly excluded by insurance policies).

• The Goller Rule – immunizing ordinary parental negligence

Recognizing the continuing need to protect parental authority and family harmony, some jurisdictions have attempted to limit immunity to negligent conduct arising out of an “exercise of parental authority . . . [or] an exercise of ordinary parental discretion with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services, and other care.” Goller v. White, 20 Wis. 2d 402, 122 N.W.2d 193 (1963).

The reasoning is that parents have a right to raise their children according to their own beliefs, without undue interference from the courts. Parents should be free to determine the physical, moral, emotional, and intellectual growth of their own children. Every parent has a unique philosophy of rearing of children, and matters of parental supervision invoke these philosophical considerations. Neither a court nor a jury can evaluate such highly subjective factors without supplanting the parent’s individual philosophy.

The Wisconsin rule from Goller, which is followed by a majority of states, is as follows: The parental-immunity rule is abrogated except in these two situations: (1) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of parental authority over the child; and (2) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of ordinary parental discretion with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services, and other care.

• The Gibson Rule – The Reasonable Parent Standard

California has led the way in completely abrogating the parental immunity doctrine and many states are moving towards the California “reasonable parent” rule adopted in Gibson v. Gibson (1971) 3 Cal.3d 914. Decided after Goller, Gibson recognized that “a parent may exercise certain authority over a minor child which would be tortious if directed toward someone else. For example, a parent may spank a child who has misbehaved without being liable for battery, or he may temporarily order the child to stay in his room as punishment, yet not be held responsible for false imprisonment.”

Gibson adopted the following rule, now known as the “reasonable parent” standard: “Since the law imposes on the parent a duty to rear and discipline his child and confers the right to prescribe a course of reasonable conduct for its development, the parent has a wide discretion in the performance of his parental functions, but that discretion does not include the right willfully to inflict personal injuries beyond the limits of reasonable parental discipline. . . [A]lthough a parent has the prerogative and the duty to exercise authority over his minor child, this prerogative must be exercised within reasonable limits. The standard to be applied is the traditional one of reasonableness, but viewed in light of the parental role. Thus, we think the proper test of a parent’s conduct is this: what would an ordinarily reasonable and prudent parent have done in similar circumstances?”

Statutory Monitoring Required : Oregon’s Child Supervision Law

One could also make the case that communications and location monitoring may sometimes be necessary for parents with a child who has a history of criminal misbehavior. For instance, Oregon imposes criminal penalties (only a $100 fine) against parents whose children violate tobacco, alcohol, truancy and curfew laws. In order to escape liability, the parents must either show they reported the conduct to police, or that they took reasonable steps to control the child. (Oregon Revised Statutes, Sect. 133.07 (Failure to Supervise a Child)).

Parental Liability for Harassing a Child: Don’t Hack Your Child’s Facebook Account

While there are no reported cases of parents being sued by their children for invasion of privacy for spying on their telephone and internet activity, there is a recent case where a parent took her supervisory activities over the top.

The 17-year old son of an Arkansas woman left his Facebook page open on his computer. His mom read his entries on the page and was disturbed to find he was posting accounts of domestic abuse by his mother. She changed his password, and, over the course of several weeks, began posting numerous false and defamatory statements which, to the child’s facebook friends, appeared to be posted by the 17-year old himself. She also sent communications by sms and through facebook to her son which were vulgar.

Her son made a police complaint. The mother was arrested, tried, and convicted of harassment. She was sentenced to 1 year probation, ordered to pay a $435 fine, and attend anger management classes. (Denise New case)

A Parent’s Takeaway: Monitoring your child’s phone and internet activity is within your right as a parent, and it may be your duty. While supervision and monitoring are perfectly within the law, harmful intentional conduct which goes beyond parenting, exposes parents to both civil and criminal liability. Moreover, public disclosure of personal communications can, in some cases, lead to civil or criminal liability for defamation, harassment or invasion of privacy.