# iPhone 3GS unlocked by Nanny. GRRR!



## diveman (Apr 23, 2005)

Hello folks,

I have a nanny that takes care of my two children while my wife and I are at work. She took it upon herself to jailbreak and unlock the 3GS that we let her use so that we could have her tracked (find my iPhone) and to access our calendar (iCal). 

I am a little ticked that she did this without consulting me first because I can no longer track her as the hackers downgraded it to 4.01. I understand why she wanted to do it as she is heading to the Philippines in the summer and wanted to use the phone there. 

What can I do to restore the functionality so that I can sync our family calendar and be able to use Find My iPhone?

Thanks,

Mike


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

Restore the iPhone.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

G-Mo said:


> Restore the iPhone.


+1. Only option if you want to use the Apple-provided tracking.


----------



## shoe (Apr 6, 2005)

Ya restore it you gave her a phone for safety and organization purposes and she turned it into a toy for her own personal use. 

She should bite the bullet on this one not you.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Is the nanny aware that she's being tracked?

Does the phone belong to you, on loan to her, or did you give the phone to her? Was there any agreement up front about where she can take the phone, and how she can use it?

And what's your stance on 'nanny-cams?'




diveman said:


> Hello folks,
> 
> I have a nanny that takes care of my two children while my wife and I are at work. She took it upon herself to jailbreak and unlock the 3GS that we let her use so that we could have her tracked (find my iPhone) and to access our calendar (iCal).
> 
> ...


----------



## diveman (Apr 23, 2005)

Thanks for all your input. I told her at the beginning of her contract that she would be provided with an iPhone while she was working for us so that we would be able to find her and to allow her to have access to our calendar. 

I never specifically stated that she couldn't alter the phone for her personal use but I didn't expect her to turn off the functionality of the phone. 

The problem now is that if I restore the phone that it will be locked back to Rogers and she has now gone over to Virgin. 

Is there a way to unlock but not jailbrake? I guess I could go to Robbers and have them unlock the phone. 

I have no problem with nanny cams and have use the Mini with a cam to check in on the house remotely. 

Any other comments are greatly appreciated. 

Mike


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

diveman said:


> The problem now is that if I restore the phone that it will be locked back to Rogers and she has now gone over to Virgin.


Who made that choice?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

So who owns the phone? Wasn't it locked to Rogers when you gave her the phone? If so why do you care if it gets locked again to Rogers.

It sounds all very confusing. Who is paying the bill? If she is why do you have control over the phone? You are allowing her to take it with her to the Philippines and use it there so it seems to me she looks at it as her phone you gave her. Either it is your phone or its not. If it is yours and you have an issue with her jailbreaking it then it must have not been jailbroken when you gave it to her hence locked to Rogers.

I am sorry this just doesn't make much sense. Sounds to me there are trust issues here which is a whole different can of worms and thread.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

HowEver said:


> Is the nanny aware that she's being tracked?


I wonder if there legal issues involved if she doesn't?


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I wonder if there legal issues involved if she doesn't?


Technically, you are not tracking the nanny, but a phone you own (it's "Find my iPhone" not "Find my Nanny"), the iPhone could be tied to the dogs collar for all you know. I know parents often enable tracking on children's cell phones without their knowledge.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

HowEver said:


> Is the nanny aware that she's being tracked?


The nanny is not tracked the phone is tracked. She could leav the phone at the house and go out without it. All very wierd to me.


----------



## psycosis (Mar 29, 2005)

diveman said:


> Thanks for all your input. I told her at the beginning of her contract that she would be provided with an iPhone while she was working for us so that we would be able to find her and to allow her to have access to our calendar.
> 
> I never specifically stated that she couldn't alter the phone for her personal use but I didn't expect her to turn off the functionality of the phone.
> 
> ...


The only way to unlock without a Jailbreak is to go to Rogers. I bet she didn't know she was removing the functionality, just wanted it unlocked. If she didn't know enough to do it herself, she probably didn't know the full consequences either.


----------



## Thom (May 10, 2005)

Wow. Talk about a "Nanny State" ...


----------



## psxp (May 23, 2006)

I bet when OP said "find you when needed" to the nanny, she expected to be found with a phone call, not track my phone. 
Anyway, sounds like the nanny is paying the bill for the phone,..why else go to Virgin? Like others said here, sounds confusing


----------



## diveman (Apr 23, 2005)

In the end the issue is not so much one of "tracking" but more the altering of property (mine, and that was made quite clear) without permission. 

She is the one paying her bill. I made that mistake before and won't get caught up in it again without an iron clad contract and usage agreement. 

Now, do I be a pr*ck and ask her for it back and restore it to the way it was before or just let things be. I guess I could restore it and then take it to Rogers and have it unlocked properly and then maintain all the functionality that I need.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

diveman said:


> In the end the issue is not so much one of "tracking" but more the altering of property (mine, and that was made quite clear) without permission.
> 
> She is the one paying her bill. I made that mistake before and won't get caught up in it again without an iron clad contract and usage agreement.
> 
> *Now, do I be a pr*ck and ask her for it back and restore it to the way it was before or just let things be. I guess I could restore it and then take it to Rogers and have it unlocked properly and then maintain all the functionality that I need*.


Wasn't it locked prior to her altering it? That what I don't understand as why you need to go to Rogers to get it unlocked to work "properly'? When it was working 'properly' was it unlocked?


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

diveman said:


> I guess I could restore it and then take it to Rogers and have it unlocked properly and then maintain all the functionality that I need.


Since it's your phone but she's paying the bill, this sounds like the most logical and reasonable solution. There will be a charge and if you want her to be using the iPhone, it's your charge to cover. I believe she needs to have a data plan for the find my phone functions to work when away from wifi (but I might be mistaken).


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Does the nanny know that you can "find" her using the GPS of the phone?

Does the nanny know that you are filming her with nanny cams?

I get that you have no problem with either, and I'm aware that you aren't breaking any laws that anyone cares about. She might, though, and deserves to be aware.

There are really good reasons for parents to be paranoid. A lot of daycares similarly have cameras, but staff and parents know about them. That's what should be agreed upon gong in.

Nothing stops anyone from tracking that phone's whereabouts during the nanny's off hours, or even hacking into the nanny cams--which can turn against parents, sometimes. Not saying anyone here would do these things, just that it's better to be aware that it's possible.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

You're going to have to make it a term of employment for your nanny if you expect her to keep the phone that you provide (but that she apparently pays for monthly) locked and that you demand to be able to track the location of the phone (and by extension, I'm assuming your real intention here is to track her, but correct me if I'm wrong). 

The bigger question, of course, is why you feel the need to exercise this level of surveillance on someone you have already trusted with the care of your children. It's unclear whether your intent is to do this with or without her knowledge.

If it's just added peace of mind you're looking for, just make a point of either your wife of yourself arriving home for lunch unannounced once in a while.


----------



## diveman (Apr 23, 2005)

Yes and yes to both. 

Very often I am out of town on business and the only way to communicate with my children is via FaceTime. The kids are too young to know how to operate it from their end so I remote into the computer using Back to My Mac and turn it on for them. I also use it to monitor the security of the house when I am not there.

I also kick the dog off the couch is he is up there! 



HowEver said:


> Does the nanny know that you can "find" her using the GPS of the phone?
> 
> Does the nanny know that you are filming her with nanny cams?


----------



## diveman (Apr 23, 2005)

Trust is not the issue. I just like to know where the kids are. She is very aware that have the capabilities of checking up on her. 

We did have some issues with a person that was caring for our children a while ago and, thanks to some great neighbors, were able to deal with the problem with great expediency. 

I will not apologize for looking out for my children.



(( p g )) said:


> The bigger question, of course, is why you feel the need to exercise this level of surveillance on someone you have already trusted with the care of your children. It's unclear whether your intent is to do this with or without her knowledge.
> 
> If it's just added peace of mind you're looking for, just make a point of either your wife of yourself arriving home for lunch unannounced once in a while.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Was the phone unlocked *before* she unlocked it and connected to Verizon?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Thanks for answering that. It seems fair if she knows, and there are benefits to knowing where your kids are, obviously.




diveman said:


> Yes and yes to both.
> 
> Very often I am out of town on business and the only way to communicate with my children is via FaceTime. The kids are too young to know how to operate it from their end so I remote into the computer using Back to My Mac and turn it on for them. I also use it to monitor the security of the house when I am not there.
> 
> I also kick the dog off the couch is he is up there!


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> Was the phone unlocked *before* she unlocked it and connected to Verizon?


No. The phone was locked to Rogers.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

G-Mo said:


> No. The phone was locked to Rogers.


So then why the issue of restoring it and it locked to rogers again if he does own the phone.?


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

I'm assuming that the nanny moved over to Verizon to get a better monthly plan. It sounds like the OP is trying to be considerate in allowing her to keep that plan by wanting to restore it and have it unlocked by rogers. I also think that a data connection is necessary for find my iPhone. That might be another hurdle if the nanny does not want to pay for data.


----------



## diveman (Apr 23, 2005)

*Latest Problem*

Well, I went ahead and did a restore of the phone and called Rogers and paid the $50 to get the phone unlocked. They tell me it is unlocked and to connect to iTunes to make it work. 

I hook up to iTunes and get a "There is no SIM in the iPhone you are trying to activate." There is a Virgin SIM in there and it was working prior to the phone being restored.

I checked to see if there is an IMEI and there is but there is no ICCID. 

Ideas?

Mike


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

diveman said:


> Well, I went ahead and did a restore of the phone and called Rogers and paid the $50 to get the phone unlocked. They tell me it is unlocked and to connect to iTunes to make it work.
> 
> I hook up to iTunes and get a "There is no SIM in the iPhone you are trying to activate." There is a Virgin SIM in there and it was working prior to the phone being restored.
> 
> ...


What version baseband is the phone on? She may have had it updated to the iPad baseband which would make the phone work very wonkily.

My guess is thats how they achieved the unlock.

-M


----------



## diveman (Apr 23, 2005)

I have no idea? If this is the case what do I do now?



The G3 Man said:


> What version baseband is the phone on? She may have had it updated to the iPad baseband which would make the phone work very wonkily.
> 
> My guess is thats how they achieved the unlock.
> 
> -M


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

The whole situation sounds unsavory to me. If you want your nanny to essentially wear the equivalent of an ankle bracelet when she's with your kids and she agrees, that's one thing. But you have no right to be able to track her whereabouts when she's on her own time. This isn't a gift, it's a Trojan horse. Either you are giving her an extra phone free of charge so that you can call her, or she buys one on her own. Either way, it's more than a little creepy that you feel entitled to track her like this. I certainly would never accept those conditions if I were working for you. A free 3GS iPhone (which anyone can get for free from Rogers anyway) is not worth sacrificing one's privacy for.


----------



## diveman (Apr 23, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> The whole situation sounds unsavory to me. If you want your nanny to essentially wear the equivalent of an ankle bracelet when she's with your kids and she agrees, that's one thing. But you have no right to be able to track her whereabouts when she's on her own time. This isn't a gift, it's a Trojan horse. Either you are giving her an extra phone free of charge so that you can call her, or she buys one on her own. Either way, it's more than a little creepy that you feel entitled to track her like this. I certainly would never accept those conditions if I were working for you. A free 3GS iPhone (which anyone can get for free from Rogers anyway) is not worth sacrificing one's privacy for.


You can feel how you like and that is your prerogative.


----------



## diveman (Apr 23, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> The whole situation sounds unsavory to me. If you want your nanny to essentially wear the equivalent of an ankle bracelet when she's with your kids and she agrees, that's one thing. But you have no right to be able to track her whereabouts when she's on her own time. This isn't a gift, it's a Trojan horse. Either you are giving her an extra phone free of charge so that you can call her, or she buys one on her own. Either way, it's more than a little creepy that you feel entitled to track her like this. I certainly would never accept those conditions if I were working for you. A free 3GS iPhone (which anyone can get for free from Rogers anyway) is not worth sacrificing one's privacy for.


Who said anything about tracking her on her own time? The iPhone is a perk of the job that will be returned upon completion of her duties. Do you get a company car to do your job? Same idea. You return it upon termination.

As I said before, when my children are involved I need to know that I can get to them and there is NO way that I am going to apologize for that!


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

There's no need to be defensive. You asked for advice but it was not at all clear whether your intent was to track without her knowledge. As I said to you earlier, if you want to go that route you will be wise to make it a contractual condition of employment. It's your choice if you want to rely on an iPhone in doing your job as a parent. But you do need to be aware of the legal aspects of what you are proposing for this nanny. Probably wiser that your discuss this with an attorney rather than in this forum.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

diveman said:


> Who said anything about tracking her on her own time? The iPhone is a perk of the job that will be returned upon completion of her duties. Do you get a company car to do your job? Same idea. You return it upon termination.
> 
> As I said before, when my children are involved I need to know that I can get to them and there is NO way that I am going to apologize for that!


This is exactly why people are overwhelmingly supporting the bring your own device to work concept; no one likes the thought of being under surveillance. Why do you think you need to track your nanny? If I felt a nanny needed tracking, I probably wouldn't hire them, and for the same reason as you--my children are too precious to take chances with. But once this person had earned my trust, I would have to allow them the freedom to do their job without being micromanaged. Just my view on what you've stated here.


----------



## psycosis (Mar 29, 2005)

diveman said:


> Well, I went ahead and did a restore of the phone and called Rogers and paid the $50 to get the phone unlocked. They tell me it is unlocked and to connect to iTunes to make it work.
> 
> I hook up to iTunes and get a "There is no SIM in the iPhone you are trying to activate." There is a Virgin SIM in there and it was working prior to the phone being restored.
> 
> ...


Put a Rogers sim in and try to activate. Im guessing it needs the rogers sim to start the process.


----------



## Vegairin (Mar 21, 2012)

So, if that phone? Was not it is locked to Rogers, if you give him the phone? If yes, why you care if it is blocked again to Rogers.

It seems very confusing. Who pays? If it is, why you have control over the phone? They are what they take with her ​​to the Philippines and then use it as it seems to me it looks like his call, you gave it. Whether the phone and not. If it's yours and you have a problem with his jailbreak it should not have jailbroken if it was for him and be locked to Rogers.:lmao:


----------



## johnnydee (Feb 10, 2004)

I'm assuming you were not clear regarding ownership of the phone as you have stated she was taking the phone to the Philippines !
Did she ask your permission to take your phone overseas with her?
I suspect she believed the phone was a perk of the job and one that she would have ownership of unless, when you handed her the phone you explained it was of a temporary nature as it was a way you could keep in touch with her and the children and would be returned at the end of her position!
Your Honour the defense rests!


----------



## shoe (Apr 6, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> But you have no right to be able to track her whereabouts when she's on her own time.


Who said the nanny has to take the phone around with her on her own time?

If I was given a company car say a KIA with a tracking device in it and I drove it home once its in my driveway I can turn it off and drive my own car around. Maybe Im not a KIA kind of guy either Maybe I have a thing for Corvettes, Im pretty sure just because I like Vettes Im not going to drop in a Vette Engine inside the Kia extreme comparison but isn't that kind of like changing all the settings on the phone and the carrier from Rogers to Virgin?

If the nanny wants to use a phone over in the Philippines maybe she should just buy a pay as you go there. Seems to me all she had to do was ask before she went ahead with these changes and something could have been done so that everyone was happy diveman seems like a pretty reasonable guy to me.

Diveman I still say your right shes wrong take the phone back return it to its original state then clearly state to the nanny she cant change your phone company for you, cant change your paint colours, cant change your cars engine, or the cream in your coffee but if she wants to put milk in hers she can go right ahead.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

shoe said:


> Who said the nanny has to take the phone around with her on her own time?
> 
> If I was given a company car say a KIA with a tracking device in it and I drove it home once its in my driveway I can turn it off and drive my own car around. Maybe Im not a KIA kind of guy either Maybe I have a thing for Corvettes, Im pretty sure just because I like Vettes Im not going to drop in a Vette Engine inside the Kia extreme comparison but isn't that kind of like changing all the settings on the phone and the carrier from Rogers to Virgin?
> 
> ...


It doesn't sound like the nanny had a whole lot of choice in the matter. Accepting the iPhone and its associated tracking capability was a condition of employment, and not a gift to the nanny. It's also one thing if the employer then also pays the carrier cost each month as the price of having so much control. I would have trouble personally accepting such conditions, because how would I know the employer isn't going to keep tracking me when I'm no longer on the clock? Like I say, it seems unsavoury to me, but if the nanny is cool with it, then so be it. Being that she changed carriers, it would seem that the surveillance conditions were not something she was entirely comfortable with. If I was her, I'd get my own cellphone and pay the shot so I'm not beholden to someone else.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

diveman said:


> The iPhone is a perk of the job that will be returned upon completion of her duties.


Let me get this straight, you gave her an outdated phone and make her cover the carrier cost? That hardly seems like a perk, as she could have got an iPhone 4 for basically nothing just by signing a contract. I would agree with you if you were covering the operating expenses on the phone and if you made her aware that you would be occasionally tracking her whereabouts using the phone. I don't think this is the case though, and that she is under the impression that when you said you wanted to "keep track of her", she was under the assumption that you meant you could call her, not by using the GPS. You are taking advantage of her because she's just a nanny. If I, or anyone else found out that their employer was tracking their whereabouts via GPS without their knowledge, you can bet your ass their would be a huge lawsuit. If you have a Nanny cam, she needs to be aware. If she leaves the house with your kids, she needs to make you aware. And most importantly, if you don't trust her, fire her. If you do trust her, stop with the espionage stuff.


----------



## diveman (Apr 23, 2005)

The issue has never been about trust. This has been blown out of proportion. I supplied her with an iPhone to use while under our employ. I clearly stated that I had the ability to find her in the event of an emergency. The "Nanny Cam" is more for me being able to talk to my children when I am away on business. I do not have the interest or time to spy on the nanny that is living in our home and providing excellent care for my children. 

As stated a few messages ago, had she asked me about the unlocking of the device then I would have gone through the appropriate channels and do it properly via Apple and Rogers.

This issue is all about the phone. End of story.


----------



## HenriHelvetica (Oct 4, 2011)

What an interesting thread. 

For all who are scared about the tracking element of this story, Google anyone?? Facebook?? Talk about offenders. 

Anyhow, re: trust factor, I'm certain the nanny's to be trusted - just like police officers, and retail staff. B/c there's there's never been cases of police misconduct, and retail has never been the victim of internal theft. We've seen the odd abuse from caretakers, and seeing that technology allows for remote streaming, why not? I

The phone issue is certainly a bit more hazy but I'm all for it. Now, what obviously took place is a little odd. The modification of the phone was a little brazen in my books, but hey - she wants to use the phone. Though I personally feel that she should have asked. And if she really had wanted an iPhone - i'm sure she would have picked one up herself. But did not for whatever reason. 

Again, FaceTime and other apps will make for tracking and communications at all times accessible to consumers like never before. There was a wired article years back on helicopter parenting... I don't think this is the case, but there are parallels.
As a nanny, looking after someone else's kids, in 2012 you can expect something like this to take place. I just think there's too much ease and access for it not to be an option. How are you going to deny an op to have a 2-3 mins with your kids??

Now, what might need to happen is a more detailed understanding of what the rules are as a nanny and the use of the phone. There are tons of jobs where ppl are all on *call*, and must be available to answer some q?s at the very least. And this is just a means to touch base. I have no real issues w/ it. If she is looking after the kids from 8-4 everyday, she can expect to be asked what her whereabouts are like many jobs during that time. 
Anything after that/private time? on her. So maybe she needs to have her own phone and own line then. That seems like the easiest solution. 

But again, I would have a pretty detailed outline of what is expected from her, and the kind of communications that are expected as well. I would probably cover the phone and the line for MY communications. If she wanted to use it, that would have to be worked out and some fee agreed to. But the primary use of the phone would be for my access to my kids at all times - almost a spare line

But what if she doesn't pay her bill one day?? What if she loses the phone on private time/overseas?? Things to table as well as responsibilities. 

But for anyone who's not interested in being *tracked*, don't become a nanny. In my tender youth, we had a live in nanny. She was young - and CUTE  - and we found out eventually that she was inviting ppl over to the house during day, drinking from the bar, and _doing other things_... do you think this would have happened knowing she was being watched? Again, we always go into these agreements with the best of intentions and faith, until you get screwed once. Maybe some ppl rather avoid the screwing part entirely. 

Hope it all works out Diveman.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

HenriHelvetica said:


> But for anyone who's not interested in being *tracked*, don't become a nanny. In my tender youth, we had a live in nanny. She was young - and CUTE  - and we found out eventually that she was inviting ppl over to the house during day, drinking from the bar, and _doing other things_... do you think this would have happened knowing she was being watched? .


GPS tracking wouldn't have helped you there anyway, if she was doing this in your home. My gut feeling is that if you think you need a nanny-cam, then this isn't the nanny for you.


----------



## HenriHelvetica (Oct 4, 2011)

fjnmusic said:


> GPS tracking wouldn't have helped you there anyway, if she was doing this in your home. My gut feeling is that if you think you need a nanny-cam, then this isn't the nanny for you.


The GPS issue I feel is totally different. She wants to use the iPhone personally - which Diveman is seemingly willing to accommodate, but Diveman just wants to be able to speak to his kids, and know their whereabouts. They will have to sort that out, but I see nothing egregious in that request to hold a phone that I KNOW I can reach at all times - any time - during her *work* hours.


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

This is quite the story in my opinion. However, there is still one thing that bothers me about the iPhone... How could it be previously locked to Rogers and be used on Virgin without the iPhone being unlocked. The phone must have either been unlocked before via official unlock or by jailbreak.... Can the OP clarify this matter because if the iPhone was unlocked anyway, then a jailbreak unlock would have been pointless... She could have used it in the Philippines with no problem... 

Also, this means that the phone could be updated back to iOS 5.1 and still be unlocked (if it was officially unlocked)...


----------



## diveman (Apr 23, 2005)

The phone was locked to Rogers. She had it unlocked and jailbroken without my knowledge. I tried to have it restored to original and was then going to unlock it via Rogers. The phone is now bricked. I tried to restore it to factory via iTunes but there were many errors. I took it to Buy N Cell to have it fixed and they couldn't do anything.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

diveman said:


> The phone was locked to Rogers. She had it unlocked and jailbroken without my knowledge. I tried to have it restored to original and was then going to unlock it via Rogers. The phone is now bricked. I tried to restore it to factory via iTunes but there were many errors. I took it to Buy N Cell to have it fixed and they couldn't do anything.


Sounds like she viewed it as a gift she could do with as she liked. It does not sound like she was clear on the parameters for her use of your phone.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Lojack the kids.

There. Done.




diveman said:


> The phone was locked to Rogers. She had it unlocked and jailbroken without my knowledge. I tried to have it restored to original and was then going to unlock it via Rogers. The phone is now bricked. I tried to restore it to factory via iTunes but there were many errors. I took it to Buy N Cell to have it fixed and they couldn't do anything.


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

diveman said:


> The phone was locked to Rogers. She had it unlocked and jailbroken without my knowledge. I tried to have it restored to original and was then going to unlock it via Rogers. The phone is now bricked. I tried to restore it to factory via iTunes but there were many errors. I took it to Buy N Cell to have it fixed and they couldn't do anything.


That means that she:

a) jailbroke the iPhone
b) unlocked the iPhone
c) switched carriers to Virgin

all in one shot? Any reason why she decided to switch on to Virgin all of a sudden?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Tech Elementz said:


> That means that she:
> 
> a) jailbroke the iPhone
> b) unlocked the iPhone
> ...


Because she wanted to track her employer. :lmao:


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Tech Elementz said:


> That means that she:
> 
> a) jailbroke the iPhone
> b) unlocked the iPhone
> ...


Because she pays the bill for service herself and Virgin is probably cheaper. At least that's what I read many posts ago.


----------



## johnnydee (Feb 10, 2004)

This has to be clearly labelled "Indian giver" or now it's called "Filipino giver" !!


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

Joker Eh said:


> Because she wanted to track her employer. :lmao:


Ok, That Was Good. 



Macified said:


> Because she pays the bill for service herself and Virgin is probably cheaper. At least that's what I read many posts ago.


Perhaps, but Fido is also cheap as well. In fact, I think they are the best bang for your buck. Has the OP confronted, or at least ask why she changed carriers?


----------



## diveman (Apr 23, 2005)

It was financial. She heard of a good deal. I don't think it was too good. She got a "free" phone and a new contract. Don't know the complete details as I didn't want to get into it.


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

Quite the hectic story for the OP.


----------

