Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Electronic Frontier Foundation DRM Hardware Your Rights Online

Jailbreaking Could Soon Become Illegal Again 239

Posted by timothy
from the so-stay-in-that-cage dept.
Diggester writes "Back in July 2010, the United States government approved a few exemptions in a federal law which made jailbreaking/rooting of electronic devices (iPhones and Android devices) legal. The court ruling stated that every three years, the exemptions have to be renewed considering they don't infringe any copyrighted material. The three-year period is due to expire and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is looking to get the exemptions renewed. In order to do so, they have filed a petition which aims at government to declare jailbreaking legal once again. In addition to that, EFF is also asking for a change in the original ruling to include tablet devices." Here's the EFF's own page on the issue.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jailbreaking Could Soon Become Illegal Again

Comments Filter:
  • Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mvar (1386987) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:31PM (#38833613)
    Illegal or not i'll do whatever i want with my phone. I may as well take a hammer and test its screen, oh wait, is that illegal too? Patents, IP, copyright, SOPA, PIPA, lawsuits.. fuck them
    • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Microlith (54737) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:35PM (#38833655)

      You should care. If you don't, you're just handing the reins over to someone who will fuck you over with force of law.

      And if you don't care, you're half the problem.

      • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:57PM (#38833913)

        The crazier the intellectual property laws get the less respect people will have for intellectual property laws. I care quite a bit, but at this point it may be easier to just let "big content" hang themselves.

        • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Interesting)

          by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:10PM (#38834021) Homepage Journal

          The crazier the intellectual property laws get the less respect people will have for intellectual property laws.

          I'm not sure how much less respect people can have for "intellectual property laws".

          Any possibility for respect was wasted when "95 years from publication or 120 years from creation whichever is shorter" became the length of a copyright. Or when advocates for "intellectual property" sought penalties in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading songs via bittorrent.

          There just isn't a compelling reason why anyone should respect copyright laws. Especially considering how little of the financial benefit of those laws actually goes to the creator.

          • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Dahamma (304068) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:23PM (#38834169)

            Especially considering how little of the financial benefit of those laws actually goes to the creator.

            The copyright length is definitely absurd (I'd argue in most cases 2-3 years would allow recovering the investment made into it and the majority of future profits), and removing casual copying of content probably would not result in much of an increase in sales, I agree. But it is still a huge benefit to content creators in one way - it keeps organized, commercial piracy (that is so common in Asian countries) to a minimum in many countries.

            Imagine if there were *no* laws against copying someone else's work - say anyone could legally copy a studio's movie print and show it in their own theater, or copy DVDs, CDs, or books and sell them in a retail store along side the "official" copies, etc. Those copiers don't have to make back the time and money put into creating the work, only the trivial cost of duplicating it. I'd call preventing that a definite financial benefit to the creator...

          • by houghi (78078)

            The reason is control. As everybody now is a criminal, they can use it as leverage to let you do stuff you normally never would do.

      • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Tr3vin (1220548) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:08PM (#38833995)
        I do care, but I speak with my money. I buy phones that the manufacturer allows me to hack / modify. 'fastboot oem unlock' is a glorious thing. I'd rather give money to a company that allows me to do what I want than fight the more controlling companies.
        • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tepples (727027) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {selppet}> on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:14PM (#38834071) Homepage Journal

          I'd rather give money to a company that allows me to do what I want than fight the more controlling companies.

          So would I, but in some cases that I've seen, "the more controlling companies" control virtually all of a market.

          • If I buy a carrier independent Android compatible phone then I don't have to jailbreak it.

            • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Interesting)

              by tepples (727027) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {selppet}> on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:27PM (#38834223) Homepage Journal

              If I buy a carrier independent Android compatible phone

              With the mess of protocols (CDMA2000 vs. GSM/UMTS), bands (AWS vs. standard), and plans (no discount for not taking a subsidized phone) that is the U.S. cell phone market, do you have a plan for making this practical in the United States?

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by Anonymous Coward

                The Galaxy Nexus is pentaband, supporting AWS and "standard" GSM. That just misses wimax and CDMA.

                The Galaxy Nexus doesn't need SIM unlocking.

                The Galaxy Nexus can be "jailbroken" simply by running fastboot oem unlock. No hacks needed, fastboot is a tool provided by Google.

            • by whoever57 (658626)

              If I buy a carrier independent Android compatible phone then I don't have to jailbreak it.

              You are confused between sim-unlocking (allws the phone to be used with different carriers) and jailbreaking (allows different firmware to be loaded or features enabled).

          • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Interesting)

            by CRC'99 (96526) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @09:42PM (#38835613) Homepage

            As someone who recently jailbroke his iPad2, its one of the best things to ever happen to my iPad!

            I bought a WiFi only model - as for my purposes, the onboard GPS is *very* substandard. When then trying to use a normal bluetooth GPS, I find out that you need a GPS that speaks "Apple" at $99USD + shipping to your country. After the jailbreak, a $5 donation to the guy who wrote a part of a bluetooth driver and bingo, now it works with ANY bluetooth GPS.

            Theres also this awesome extension called "Mail Extender" that adds all the features that mail clients have developed over the last 10 years when Apple decided that you shall not send anything but plain text emails.

            Thankfully, I live in a country where console modchips and other methods for device compatibility are 100% legal - and tested in court.

        • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Microlith (54737) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:25PM (#38834199)

          So do I, which is why I still use my N900.

          I'd rather give money to a company that allows me to do what I want than fight the more controlling companies.

          You have no choice. Look at the primary opponent of this: Apple. Look at their results. You cannot simply avoid them, their influence on the market is so stupidly huge that even if you don't buy their product, they can still directly impact your ability to choose other options in the future.

          • by idontgno (624372)

            Interesting. The iPhone Reality Distortion Field is, in fact, the tidal gravitation zone of their humongous black hole's event horizon. The entire smartphone industry is stuck in the iPhone accretion disk, and there's almost no escape.

            Well, I'll still keep jailbraking, and they won't catch me.

        • by whoever57 (658626)

          I do care, but I speak with my money. I buy phones that the manufacturer allows me to hack / modify.

          And when no manufacturer sells such a phone/tablet/whatever? What will you do then?

      • by mvar (1386987)
        Agreed. Although with "who cares" I meant that we just shouldn't obey all these irrational laws they vote since most of them are written to either fuck us (the people) or serve some specific financial lobby, or both.
        • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fish_in_the_c (577259) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:33PM (#38834287)

          Are they immoral? If so disobey them.. if not obey them and work to change them.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience [wikipedia.org]

          The question is are your action out of Love or Selfishness.
          Out of concern for the common good , or just being a tool.

          If you are actually looking to create a better world around you people will have more respect for your position ,even if they don't agree with it, they are still likely to jail, crucify or otherwise attack you, but your actions will have slow effect towards justice and you might have a chance at changing things because, often times people know when they are wrong even if they don't admit it.

          If your motivations are selfish than it will show too and no-body will listen to you because you aren't just being a cry baby when you put in jail for doing what you knew was illegal.

          That's the real problem with the occupy movement, they don't offer solutions , only complaints, they aren't making any useful demands on what would actually make things better, based on concern for the public good, they are simply saying they don't like the way things are.

          News flash, nobody likes the way things are, the world will never be perfect this side of the grave.

          The only question is , what are you going to do about it!

        • by whoever57 (658626)

          Agreed. Although with "who cares" I meant that we just shouldn't obey all these irrational laws they vote since most of them are written to either fuck us (the people) or serve some specific financial lobby, or both.

          The copyright lobby has not dropped SOPA/PIPA. Even a watered-down version of these could make it very difficult for communities to develop around rooting/jailbreaking phones so that, unless you can figure out your own jailbreak, you may not be able to download the information and binaries req

    • by jamstar7 (694492)
      Breaking your phone's screen is about the only thing that's legal. It forces you to buy another phone.
    • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:36PM (#38833677)

      You care. Because not only is it illegal for you to jailbreak, it is illegal for someone else to help you. As in to provide the tools to do the jailbreaking. So unless you are an uberhacker, you won't be doing much jailbreaking.

      • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Microlith (54737) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:48PM (#38833827)

        And you're under prior-restraint to keep silent about such methods!

        Don't you love how the DMCA violates the First Amendment for the sake of corporate interests?

        • by poetmatt (793785)

          They've just never had a chance to challenge the issue directly. The courts have sidestepped this as much as possible to narrowly rule on technicalities. The truth is, prior restraint isn't suddenly invalid as a defense because of the DMCA but courts are always very hesitant to fight against laws created by congress. Isn't it great? Even in the supreme court. This is how broken our system of branches of gov't is as it exists.

          It becomes: Legislative branch -> judicial branch (Judicial rolls over 99% of th

      • by theillien (984847)
        Somehow, I don't think illegality will stop people from creating the tools or finding ways to disseminate them. Call me crazy since we already know how locked down things are on the Internet and nothing illegal ever happens.
    • by Hentes (2461350)

      Just because the laws are bad doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix them. You might think that it won't have any effect, just wait until people get convicted for posting jailbreaking methods or linking to those posts.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      [i]Illegal or not i'll do whatever i want with my phone[/i]

      YOU do something that no one will know about is not the problem.

      The problem are the people who are creating the tools. If creation, or possession of the tools becomes illegal, or advocation and instruction on how to use them becomes illegal... then all those websites you can easily "google" today to learn how to do it will VANISH.

      You're welcome to reinvent the wheel in your basement, but more than likely you'll simply saying "fuckit" and move on...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:39PM (#38833713)

      Everyone, 'stop calling it jailbreaking', and start calling it a Free Country..

    • Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:42PM (#38833747) Journal
      Inconveniently, you'll attempt to do what you want with your phone.

      In the vast majority of cases, unless the owner of the device has considerable spare time and skills far outside the norm, their ability to do what they want with their device depends largely on the public availability of tools for doing so. Those tools are the ones that are most likely to get harder to find should their legal status shift(architecturally, prosecuting individuals who tamper with a GUID-bearing, cellular-modem-connected, user-account-data-correlated, device would actually be comparatively practical, make one mistake in your jailbreak, hit a tripwire or a tilt-bit somewhere, and run the risk that the hardware will phone home and report you; but unlikely to be a good PR move...)

      Against a complex system, you are only as good as your tools, which becomes a much greater limitation if those become contraband.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by nurb432 (527695)

      You will care when you cant access any tools to do it if they are all blocked, and perhaps even be logged that you tried to access the tools, or if you get them and succeed in jail breaking your service goes dark and a warrant is automatically issued .( it can be detected by the carriers if its a cell phone ya know.. )

    • Illegal or not i'll do whatever i want with my phone

      So, where do I get all the tools that geohot wrote, so that I can jailbreak my PS3?

      The problem with software being illegal is that it makes it harder to get that software, which discourages people who might have done so otherwise. I have no problem finding the PS3 jailbreaking tools, but a lot of other people would. Further, do you really want hackers to be arrested, deported, and so forth just for writing or distributing such tools? Do you really want to have to go on Tor or Freenet to find them?

  • Why would something that is legal now suddenly become illegal after three years? Can anyone explain why, something should ever suddenly become legal after being ruled legal for a 'duration of three years'? Is it so the government makes sure they have something to do?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:35PM (#38833659)

      The DMCA makes circumventing digital security illegal - and this could include jailbreaking your phone / tablet / computer if it ever comes to that.
      It has a provision for making exceptions, but unlike the DMCA the exceptions only last for three years. If they're not renewed they automatically lapse.

      • by tragedy (27079) on Friday January 27, 2012 @02:01AM (#38836725)

        Yes, wouldn't it be nice if the DMCA had a sunset provision too? Personally, I think all new laws should have sunset provisions without some sort of actual constitutional amendment-like system to make them permanent. I also think they should need to be read in their entirety, on record in the house and senate before they get to vote on them every time.

    • by Microlith (54737) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:37PM (#38833679)

      Because of this:

      - Jailbreaking breaks the security on the iPhone, thus putting the tools in violation of the DMCA
      - The LoC granted an exception to the DMCA for jailbreaking tools in the interest of enabling compatibility.

      It's part of the DMCA, and its complete and total pro-corporate bias. All you jailbreaking Apple fans should watch as Apple fights the exemption renewal. They hate you and want you back in the box, and to never talk about it.

    • The reason that it expires (just like a lot of tax loopholes) is so that another round of fund raising can begin for both sides of a divisive issue.
      Setting it to expire is how they keep the campaign coffers full.
      It is the government version of vendor lock in.

    • by CaptainLard (1902452) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:41PM (#38833729)
      Well you know what they say, "theres nothing more permanent than a temporary government program/law/tax/etc.". Maybe its due for one such law to work out in favor of the tinkerers...
    • by Hentes (2461350)

      It's a property of the legal system that mandates laws to have a start date and allows for an optional expire date. This is mostly used to limit the duration of an executive order or decree, but it's not limited to just that.

    • by PPH (736903)

      Because the open platform and the power to do with it what you want was what convinced you to invest money in the hardware. Now that they've got you, they're tightening the leash.

      Haven't you learned anything from how free samples of crack work?

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      Its a tactic to get their way by making people think they are getting their way, but in a few years it quietly expires and goes the way of what congress really wanted if no one notices.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:33PM (#38833629) Journal
    There is something just heartbreakingly pathetic at the notion that the EFF is going to have to petition to get further devices included, distinguished largely by shape from those originally included, rather than it being a given that the device you buy, you own.

    Perversely, I sometimes wonder if the situation would be improved if makers of 'traditional' categories of objects, like cars and appliances and firearms, were to start getting their DRM on and building systems that cryptographically verify every FRU's TPM on start and enter a lockout that can only be cleared by an authorized dealer if any tampering is suspected... Yeah, it'd make those product categories horribly worse; but it might finally give the computer-clueless some idea of just how insane the world of EULAs, DRM, and assorted device lockdown really is...
    • Perfect phrase! .gov pulverizes us with new copyright treaties, then we have to ASK to KEEP the exceptions! Trouble is, y'all have followed the pace of things, the climate is WAY worse than 3 years ago - the Corp-Gov hydra is smelling blood and wants to go for the kill.

    • distinguished solely by shape

      That's better

    • by Hillgiant (916436)

      I sometimes wonder if the situation would be improved if makers of 'traditional' categories of objects, like cars ... verify every FRU's TPM on start and enter a lockout that can only be cleared by an authorized dealer if any tampering is suspected.

      They already do that. Though, I guess "lip mode" may not fully qualify as a "lockout".

  • by Rivalz (1431453) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:39PM (#38833709)

    We need to create a new arm of the government now to fight this menace to society.
    We need a badass name to instill fear in teenagers to curb their illicit jailbreaking habits.

    An elite squad named...
    A.J.A.C.K.A.S.S
    Anti Jailbreaking And Computer Knowledge Agianst Stupid Senators

  • by Teun (17872) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:40PM (#38833723) Homepage
    On the one hand you can in many jurisdictions legally shoot (take the life of) someone that trespasses your land/ house or car and on the other hand you can be locked up for modifying your own paid for appliance.

    While the outside world has for many years thought the USofA was the most materialistic nation on earth...

    • by Idbar (1034346) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @07:41PM (#38834815)
      Amazing indeed. A place where a company is legally prosecuted for antitrust, for not allowing to uninstall their browser. Yet other companies attack their customers for trying to uninstall or modify any other part of their system.

      Ah... how nice is being on the side that makes the rules.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:40PM (#38833725)
    It would be nice if all laws had a sunset scheme... something like:

    Law originally passed unanimously: no sunset review needed

    Law originally passed 75% to 25%: ok to "bundle" with other laws in a simple majority re-confirmation every 10 years.

    Law originally passed with simple majority less than 75%? requires single-issue re-confirmation every 3 years.
    • by Sarten-X (1102295)
      I actually rather like that. Sure, its a lot more paperwork and problems for Congress... but then maybe they'll be less likely to waste time on stupid things.
    • by dnahelicase (1594971) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:16PM (#38834087)

      It would be nice if all laws had a sunset scheme..

      If only I had mod points.!

      Why stop at laws? Let's make things like copyright expire too!

    • Law originally passed unanimously: no sunset review needed

      And guess how both the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Copyright Term Extension Act passed.

    • by bky1701 (979071)
      That's fine and good, until you have environmental regulations expiring in a divided congress. Just look at the debt shenanigans if you want to know why your suggestion would never work.
    • by Bucky24 (1943328)
      Cmon, considering how long it takes Congress to pass NEW laws, if we had a sunset clause like this nothing would ever get done.
      • by KiloByte (825081)

        Cmon, considering how long it takes Congress to pass NEW laws, if we had a sunset clause like this nothing would ever get done.

        That's the whole point!

      • Cmon, considering how long it takes Congress to pass NEW laws, if we had a sunset clause like this nothing would ever get done.

        And that's different from now, how?

    • by deblau (68023)

      Are you crazy?? Do you know how many laws there are? They'd be constantly reviewing the old laws, and nothing new would get done...

      On second thought, this is a brilliant strategy!

    • by JustNiz (692889)

      No way.
      I like the fact that as a Freeman of the city of London, I have ancient legal permission to drive my herd of sheep across Tower bridge during rush hour.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/425364.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    • by Bo'Bob'O (95398)

      So you think that the US constitution should be up for re-confirmation every 10 years?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Can we get game consoles added as an expemtion as well? Please?

  • Who's property (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Grindalf (1089511) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:47PM (#38833815) Journal
    So if I buy such a device, who's property is it then? This seems to contradict the property laws ...
    • Ahh but thats the catch. They won't tell you that and just stick introducing laws for the software parts of the hardware. You want to mod the phone to run an OS other than the one that came with it, sorry to bad its illegal to remove the drm inorder to remove the original os. Imagine the out cry if all of a sudden you couldn't do ANYTHING with the physical part of the device.

    • Re:Who's property (Score:4, Informative)

      by Em Adespoton (792954) <slashdotonly.1.adespoton@spamgourmet.com> on Thursday January 26, 2012 @07:20PM (#38834675) Homepage Journal

      If you buy such a device, it's your property. However, in order to do anything useful, you'll either need to flash the device yourself (this lets you *replace* the software, which is legal), or agree to the software license and then circumvent the software somehow -- and the software does NOT belong to you -- it belongs to the copyright holder, and they let you run it on your device.

      If you can reflash (hardware reflash, not software reflash via the software already provided by the manufacturer) the device and install some other system on it, DMCA isn't broken.

      Kind of like you can buy a car, but circumventing the on-board software is illegal. Same went for buying a printer and hacking the firmware to let you use any printer cartridge, until this got an exemption for compatibility reasons.

    • by JustNiz (692889)

      Most often the way it works is:
      The physical hardware is yours, The software isn't.
      You just get a license to run the software. The license usually includes clauses specifically against reverse-engineering or circumnavigating any part of the software or its 'security measures'.
      Then they simply find a way to make it that you have to agree to be bound by the licence terms in order to use the product.
      or
      b) By even turning on the product, you automatically have signified your acceptance of being bound by the licen

  • In their greed, the pigs are fuel the market for hardware that remains jailbreakable.

  • by nightfire-unique (253895) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:55PM (#38833889)

    Even if someone intervenes and solves this legal issue, I don't think that's good enough. Having access to tinker and enhance is the reason these devices exist at all.

    Imagine if 90s PCs were crippled this way. Would Linux, or its multibillion dollar server industry even exist? Apache? Tomcat? Free software can't survive in such a hostile environment. The anti-intellectualism must stop.

    While we do have the ability to call the shots, I suggest that the next GPL revision include an additional clause:

    Redistribution privileges granted by the GPLv4 are revoked from all manufacturers who ship devices that don't provide to the end user an easy, supported method of superuser privilege escalation.

    The good news is, it would have two effects. Smart vendors would fix their devices to comply. The evil ones would fork the kernel and anything else using the new license, and eventually die off without community support.

    Remember. We have the money, and we have the power. Not Hollywood. Hollywood is irrelevant.

    • by Microlith (54737) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:58PM (#38833925)

      The GPLv3 effectively does require that. It bars the use of GPLv3 software in things that require jailbreaking, or otherwise keep the user trapped and unable to rebuild and replace the GPLv3 binaries. Slightly different terminology, but same effect (the anti-TiVOization clause.)

      Having access to tinker and enhance is the reason these devices exist at all.

      Not quite. However, that should be something all users are able to do without interference from the manufacturer.

      Smart vendors would fix their devices to comply. The evil ones would fork the kernel and anything else using the new license, and eventually die off without community support.

      WRT GPLv3, they're already not using the GNU coreutils. And the Linux kernel will never be anything but GPLv2.

      We have the money, and we have the power. Not Hollywood. Hollywood is irrelevant.

      But you don't have someone like Chris Dodd, who can go on Fox News and threaten congressmen for not standing up to the American populace to force bad laws through.

  • Headline correction (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:56PM (#38833897)

    How about "EFF working to keep jailbreaking legal" as a headline? The OP (who has also linked to the article on his own retarded ad-filled site) is just sensationalising this shit to attract traffic / improve his pagerank. Better stories are available here [pcmag.com] and elsewhere [engadget.com].

    • by jedidiah (1196)

      Sounds like the shrill cry of a wounded fanboy.

      The fact is that Apple would see all jailbreaking be illegal if it were up to them.

      The original title is an accurate portrayal of the situation better capturing the fact that jailbreaking would otherwise be illegal. It took consumer lobbying to be declared legal and it will lapse into being illegal again without active consumer lobbying.

      This has to be done repeatedly.

      The RC could still declare jailbreaking illegal again despite of what the EFF does.

      A watered do

  • Upgrading a car stereo, getting suits tailored, Changing filters in air conditioners, Showering night club stamps off, Changing shoe laces, Singing along with a CD/mp3, Photoshop, Opening a computer... I mean, why would I have the right to root the cell phone/tablet I buy. Imagine if I enabled tethering, the world might end right then and there.
  • Do mobile providers need root access when they install CarrierIQ ? If so could they be sued if this law wasn't renewed ?
  • Always the same. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by forkfail (228161) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @07:08PM (#38834581)

    The white hats have to win every single battle.

    The black hats need only win one.

  • The solution to all this is simple, wrap your money in a EULA and a plastic bag which says "Opening this bag and depositing the money constitutes acceptance of the Monetary Remuneration End User License Agreement", and then use the EULA to state what the recipient can and cannot do with the money. They *can* use it to give their employees a raise, the *cannot* use it to buy Jaguars and Jacuzzis, etc. Personally, I'd vote for putting some really whacked-out stuff in there, just to get even a bit. Like maybe

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.

Working...