Apple's taking a pretty lackadaisical attitude toward one of the most easily avoided security flaws in recent memory, calling the iPhone's passcode lock bypass a "minor iPhone security issue" and saying that a fix will be rolled out in September. Thanks, Apple; we suppose it'd be a little too much trouble to ask for a fix sooner, even though you already fixed it once in 1.1.4. For what it's worth, a company spokeswoman is quick to point out that the flaw can easily be hidden by changing the home button double-click functionality to take you to the home screen, but most users don't know that, now do they? Way to show some hustle, guys -- cookies and gold stars all around.

Some hubbub across the 'nets the past few days suggested that the unlocked iPhones being offered by Orange in France were -- of all things -- country locked, a rather unusual (but still perfectly valid and real) form of SIM lock that would require that the SIM of a French carrier be installed in the phone. Now, by our calculation, this would've been about the crappiest thing Apple and Orange could've done and still be within the boundaries of French law requiring that phones be offered unlocked. We certainly wouldn't put it past the terrible twosome, but fortunately, it looks like the fears were a little overblown; iLounge is claiming that they've confirmed with Orange that the unlocked units are not country locked. We imagine it's not a big deal for the domestic market there either way, but for the good folks in surrounding countries, it makes the sitch a little easier.

Looks like someone doesn't want their free-on-contract handset too badly! The California Supreme Court has thrown down its seal of approval to proceed with a lawsuit challenging a couple basic principles of carrier subsidies -- locked handsets and early termination fees -- with T-Mobile begin named as the lucky defendant this time around. The carrier had previously tried to get the case thrown out (as all good corporate lawyers should) by pointing out that its contracts require customer disputes to be arbitrated rather than taken to court, but the plaintiff's legal team successfully argued that the claims they were bringing against T-Mobile weren't arbitrable. So help us out here: what does a "win" for the public good constitute in this case, court-compelled unlocks and penalty-free contract terminations or the continued availability of heavily-subsidized handsets? Is the prorated ETF a good compromise?

If you've ever found yourself facing a locked phone asking for its PUK code, you know that you're kinda in a bind when that happens. Typically you need to call your carrier, wait the standard 3.44 minutes for a rep to answer, provide some identifying information so they know you're who you say you are, and you get your code. Phone thieves, rejoice: O2 is now offering PUK codes through its website to anyone providing little more than a phone number. Granted, very few people actually lock their SIMs down with a PIN and PUK, but for those that do on O2, your safety margin just got a little smaller.

[Via textually.org]