With the recent legal decision making it legal for users to "jailbreak" their iPhones (still at the risk of losing warranty, I assume), wouldn't that also carry over to ALL cell phones? Wouldn't it then be illegal for Sprint (or Verizon, Att, etc...) to develop code that would block or remove Root? I would assume, that just as in most parts of the legal system, once precedence is set, it should carry over all carriers.
It does carry over that you're allowed to root your phone... but nothing in the ruling said the carrier can't put code in to prevent it. They just can't sue you for cracking their protection.
Ok, Makes sense, but lends another question...
If a law is passed allowing something, and someone takes measures to prevent people from doing what has already been deemed legal, they can be sued for infringing on that person's rights. Wouldn't that, in effect, be the same thing as a carrier writing code to block Root? I understand if they put in a "Safety" feature, so people can't just accidently Root, but anything beyond, would technically be a violation of our rights as the owners of the phones....
And before it gets said, I am not saying we should all run out and Sue Sprint or our individual carriers, for "Breaking Root" on our phones. I am just putting a thought out there for conversations sake. Sometimes getting other peoples opinions on a subject helps put things in perspective.
thenewguy821 said:
And before it gets said, I am not saying we should all run out and Sue Sprint or our individual carriers, for "Breaking Root" on our phones. I am just putting a thought out there for conversations sake. Sometimes getting other peoples opinions on a subject helps put things in perspective.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The ruling was that jailbreaking / rooting a phone does not fall under bypassing encryption through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That's all. They didn't say that companies can't protect their IP.
Realistically you can expect that cellular providers will start entering provisions in their contracts that make it a violation to modify your phone's software (just as it's, for example, illegal to modify pollution controls on a motor vehicle).
phobos512 said:
The ruling was that jailbreaking / rooting a phone does not fall under bypassing encryption through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That's all. They didn't say that companies can't protect their IP.
Realistically you can expect that cellular providers will start entering provisions in their contracts that make it a violation to modify your phone's software (just as it's, for example, illegal to modify pollution controls on a motor vehicle).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand what you are saying, but your examples don't apply. By modifying your vehicles pollution controls, you are finding a way around a law, therefore making it illegal. By adding provisions in their contracts, the company would be making their own laws, stricter than the ones the courts have already allowed.
A better example, In Chicago, it was recently decided (At the Supreme Court level) that the 2nd amendment applies to the entire country, not just the government. Any laws made by the states/cities trying to block the 2nd amendment rights, would be unconstitutional, and could not be enforced.
By the Courts deciding that Jailbreaking/Rooting the phones is Legal, any action by the carriers to block the unlocking of the phones, would be a violation of that court decision.
My 2 cents worth:
They can choose to block it if they want to, but they cannot penalize you for seeing that your device is rooted or jailbroken.
That's just my take on it.
Veritas06 said:
My 2 cents worth:
They can choose to block it if they want to, but they cannot penalize you for seeing that your device is rooted or jailbroken.
That's just my take on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They cannot sue you for violating DMCA since it is now an exception.
They can still:
- void your warranty
- add an verse in contract that you can be penalized for modifying to gain root
- do pretty much anything they want beyond sue you for violating DMCA until there is a lawsuit or court ruling to decide otherwise.
I think you have to remember that rooting is basically bypassing encryption the encryption. There is no where that says that Sprint/AT&T etc cant change there encryption or fix holes in it. By changing the encryption and fixing holes this often "breaks root" however you are not forced to update so i don't think you can say they are taking away your "right" to root.
Even if they put out a stealth patch that fixed the current root methods and put your phone back at stock and unrooted. They still havent infringed on your right to root your phone. You can always re root once a new method is found. While it can make it difficult for you or take away your root access they haven't actually taken away your right to root... they just arent making it easy for you which is an entirely different thing.
It would be a PR nightmare and would possibly lose some customers, but they really don't have any legal reason not to add a section in the contract to say that in order to run a phone on their network, you must you a phone with software APPROVED by them. By rooting you would lose approval.
It wouldn't be that difficult from a their perspective to allow them to cut service or even penalize you for doing so.
thenewguy821 said:
Ok, Makes sense, but lends another question...
If a law is passed allowing something, and someone takes measures to prevent people from doing what has already been deemed legal, they can be sued for infringing on that person's rights. Wouldn't that, in effect, be the same thing as a carrier writing code to block Root?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. They can write their software to be whatever they want. They are under no obligation to make it easy for you to hack. The law just makes it lawful for you to hack it. It does not make it unlawful for the companies to make it difficult or impossible. The law allows you to try, it does not gaurantee you success.
Someday they'll have an easy method to remotely determine if a phone is rooted and instantly void all our warranties, saving the company money.
If we want to run their software updates then we agree to lose root, since they were intended to run on non-rooted devices.
Posted via XDA Android app from Evo
thenewguy821 said:
I understand what you are saying, but your examples don't apply. By modifying your vehicles pollution controls, you are finding a way around a law, therefore making it illegal. By adding provisions in their contracts, the company would be making their own laws, stricter than the ones the courts have already allowed.
A better example, In Chicago, it was recently decided (At the Supreme Court level) that the 2nd amendment applies to the entire country, not just the government. Any laws made by the states/cities trying to block the 2nd amendment rights, would be unconstitutional, and could not be enforced.
By the Courts deciding that Jailbreaking/Rooting the phones is Legal, any action by the carriers to block the unlocking of the phones, would be a violation of that court decision.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're misunderstanding the concept of something being legal and something being your right...
No law was made saying that companies have to allow you to bypass their protections. The only thing that happened was that you can now not be prosecuted for bypassing protections to install 3rd party applications or remove bundled software.
I thought of an analogy... If you wanted to post on a forum like this one, you are allowed to. If the owner of the forum doesn't want you here, they can do all kinds of things to stop you. Ban your account, ban your IP, etc. If you go to a new computer at some wifi hotspot you can create a new account and sign up. That is not illegal. It's also not illegal for them to ban you again. It's not your RIGHT to go on the site but it is still LEGAL for you to do so.
ViViDboarder said:
You're misunderstanding the concept of something being legal and something being your right...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not trying to say We have a right to do this... What I meant, was by the courts decision to allow jailbreaking/rooting of phones, we now have that right. I don't think that is a misunderstanding at all.
BTW, I hope the rest of your post wasn't to imply that I should be banned from posting here, just because I started this thread. I just thought it might be an interesting topic, and to get different views on it. I could have just made another thread about Froyo coming out next week... lol
So, it sounds like not too many people here understand the recent decision. First, it was, in no way, a new law or a change to an existing law. The Library of Congress (who oversees the DMCA) issued a ruling, pretty much on a whim. That sharply distinguishes it from a court decision (that would set any kind of legal precedent).
What this means for us:
According to the Library of Congress, it is not a violation of the manufacturer's (copy)rights for users to bypass protections (rooting/jailbreaking) for the purpose of installing legally obtained software. Hence, rooting your phone to install something you legally obtained, like an app that requires root (SetCPU, Root Explorer, etc.) or a completely open-sourced ROM (CyanogenMod) is perfectly acceptable. This means that HTC cannot sue you over it AND they may not automatically brick rooted phones (Disclaimer: the process of rooting may brick your phone due to the nature of the process, I am not telling you that rooting is 100% risk-free. I am only saying that HTC may not brick your phone for that specific reason. This applies a little bit more directly to Apple and their absurd anti-jailbreaking practices). HTC can, and will, void your warranty if they discover that you rooted your phone. Likewise, Sprint may not refuse to provide network coverage to people who root for the purpose of installing legally obtained software. However, they can, and likely will, refuse to provide any warranty-style services for your phone (i.e. that $7 per month Total Equipment Protection Plan).
However, rooting your phone to install illegally obtained software is still illegal. This applies to the vast majority of ROMs available that reuse Sprint or HTC code without the express permission of those companies. CyanogenMod uses the same open-source code for Android that Google freely provides to anyone who wants it (like HTC). The CM team then works to use the open-source code provided by Google and the manufacturer (HTC's kernel is open-source and publicly released (eventually) according to the open-licensing terms that Google forces them to accept) and make that into a working ROM for your phone. Most other ROM developers take the closed-source code provided by the manufacturer (e.g. the code from the recent OTA) and manipulate or modify it to become a new ROM for your phone.
Although, while that practice is, technically, illegal, it is also very similar to a foul/penalty in sports -- it's only against the rules if you get caught. And, in this case, manufacturers have not cry foul because the developer community that is, basically, stealing their code is also driving their profit (and they are too smart to bite the hand that feeds them, unlike Apple).
So, I hope that this helps people better understand the decision and the fact that it really does not change anything in terms of the actual risks of rooting -- it only removes the extraordinarily unlikely risk of HTC suing you just for rooting. But, given their ongoing legal battles with Apple, I'd say that HTC is not worried about you or me right now anyway.
the decision doesn't specifically make root/jailbreaking legal or illegal, it just ruled that it's not a violation of the DMCA. the swat team won't be kicking down any htc execs doors just because you jumped the gun and lost root by applying an OTA
So in all reality, which ROMs aren't illegal software? Example: CM?
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
thenewguy821 said:
I am not trying to say We have a right to do this... What I meant, was by the courts decision to allow jailbreaking/rooting of phones, we now have that right. I don't think that is a misunderstanding at all.
BTW, I hope the rest of your post wasn't to imply that I should be banned from posting here, just because I started this thread. I just thought it might be an interesting topic, and to get different views on it. I could have just made another thread about Froyo coming out next week... lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, no. I wasn't implying that. Sorry. It was just the only example I could think of at the time.
Cayniarb said:
I am only saying that HTC may not brick your phone for that specific reason.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How would this apply to the Moto Droid X? Not 100% sure.......but isn't that what Moto is doing?......bricking your phone if you try to root? Will they have to change that?
bluebeast213 said:
How would this apply to the Moto Droid X? Not 100% sure.......but isn't that what Moto is doing?......bricking your phone if you try to root? Will they have to change that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. Motorola has put together some clever programing that makes the process of attempting to root the Droid X result in bricking your phone (but only sort of -- you can reinstall the stock, unrooted ROM and be all good, without root). They aren't bricking phones that are successfully rooted, they are just making it impossible (so far...) to root it in the first place.
Again, the process of rooting your phone may cause it to not work/get bricked. That is very different than being able to root, then the manufacturer bricking it after the fact (like, say, a jailbroken iPhone that you accidentally connect to iTunes -- nice, expensive paperweight).
So, no, Motorola will not have to change that for any legal reason. They may change it though because the developer community that largely drives the android platform will not be too happy with them, and that could affect their bottom line.
Related
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100726...dG9yeQRzbGsDZnVsbG5ic3BzdG9y#mwpphu-container
New gov't rules allow unapproved iPhone apps
WASHINGTON – Owners of the iPhone will be able to legally unlock their devices so they can run software applications that haven't been approved by Apple Inc., according to new government rules announced Monday.
The decision to allow the practice commonly known as "jailbreaking" is one of a handful of new exemptions from a 1998 federal law that prohibits people from bypassing technical measures that companies put on their products to prevent unauthorized use of copyright-protected material. The Library of Congress, which oversees the Copyright Office, reviews and authorizes exemptions every three years to ensure that the law does not prevent certain non-infringing uses of copyright-protected works.
For iPhone jailbreakers, the new rules effectively legitimize a practice that has been operating in a legal gray area by exempting it from liability. Apple claims that jailbreaking is an unauthorized modification of its software.
Mario Ciabarra, founder of Rock Your Phone, which calls itself an "independent iPhone application store," said the rules mark the first step toward opening the iPhone app market to competition and removing the "handcuffs" that Apple imposes on developers that want to reach users of the wildly popular device.
Unless users unlock their handsets, they can only download apps from Apple's iTunes store. Software developers must get such apps pre-approved by Apple, which sometimes demands changes or rejects programs for what developers say are vague reasons.
Ciabarra noted that Google Inc. has taken a different approach with its Android operating system, which is emerging as the biggest competitor to the iPhone. Google allows users of Android phones to download applications from outside the Android Market.
Although Apple has never prosecuted anyone for jailbreaking, it does use software upgrades to disable jailbroken phones, and the new government rules won't put a stop to that. That means owners of such phones might not be able to take advantage of software improvements, and they still run the risk of voiding their warranty.
Apple spokesman Natalie Kerris said Monday that the company is concerned about jailbreaking because the practice can make an iPhone unstable and unreliable.
"Apple's goal has always been to ensure that our customers have a great experience with their iPhone, and we know that jailbreaking can severely degrade the experience," she said.
In addition to jailbreaking, other exemptions announced Monday would:
• allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers.
• allow people to break technical protections on video games to investigate or correct security flaws.
• allow college professors, film students, documentary filmmakers and producers of noncommercial videos to break copy-protection measures on DVDs so they can embed clips for educational purposes, criticism or commentary.
• allow computer owners to bypass the need for external security devices called dongles if the dongle no longer works and cannot be replaced.
• allow blind people to break locks on electronic books so that they can use them with read-aloud software and similar aides.
Although the jailbreaking exemption is new, all the others are similar to the last set of exemptions, which were announced in November 2006. The new rules take effect Tuesday and are expected to last a few years.
The exceptions are a big victory for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which had urged the Library of Congress to legalize several of them, including the two regarding cell phones.
Jennifer Stisa Granick, EFF's civil liberties director, said the rules are based on an important principle: Consumers should be allowed to use and modify the devices that they purchase the way they want. "If you bought it, you own it," she said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With this landmark decision, say goodbye to big brother locking up phones and preventing side-loading. YAY!
Go EFF!
rorytmeadows said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100726...dG9yeQRzbGsDZnVsbG5ic3BzdG9y#mwpphu-container
With this landmark decision, say goodbye to big brother locking up phones and preventing side-loading. YAY!
Go EFF!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am wondering if that also extends to rom modification/nand flash trickery as well which has been known to violate (htc specifically) the eula. if it extends to that, then
there is a god
if not oh well back to the old drawing board
domineus said:
I am wondering if that also extends to rom modification/nand flash trickery as well which has been known to violate (htc specifically) the eula. if it extends to that, then
there is a god
if not oh well back to the old drawing board
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Either way, XDA can still live on legally with Windows Phone 7!!!
rorytmeadows said:
Either way, XDA can still live on legally with Windows Phone 7!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL let's hope!
But what about Europe?
Well, not much has changed. All this legislation means is that you can't be sued for it.
Bengal34 said:
Well, not much has changed. All this legislation means is that you can't be sued for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, more importantly, the apps, software, and other information will be more readily available to the public. People don't have to hide away. Methods and installs can be posted on CNET and Engadget, and it might be just possible that eventually, these companies might have to provide methods to side-load OR hard reset/reinstall ROMs...MAYBE???
Legal don't make it a easy thing to do. And it's still worth for Microsoft to try and prevent, as a single marketplace is better for business, both for Microsoft and for the application developers.
So it's a bit meh
rorytmeadows said:
Well, more importantly, the apps, software, and other information will be more readily available to the public. People don't have to hide away. Methods and installs can be posted on CNET and Engadget, and it might be just possible that eventually, these companies might have to provide methods to side-load OR hard reset/reinstall ROMs...MAYBE???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Companies can still take steps against it. OS updates can still break jailbreaks and doing stuff to your phones can still violated EULAs and void warranties.
While this may give consumers the right to hack their phones I dont see anything there that says companies have to support devices running unauthorised software. All they have to do is add to their EULA that hacked phones wont be supported. Plus I dont see how this is good because MS is already implementing security measures for Xbox Live on WP7, this will only make them more vigilant looking for hacked Live accounts.
Personally I dont know why people dont just buy a device that doesnt need to be hacked in the first place, why buy a device then start moaning that you cant load what you want when that is the functionality it had when you purchased it?
Well, implications of this ruling down the road COULD mean that companies have to provide easy opportunities for side-loading. That could mean that Apple, Microsoft, etc., has to allow side-loading by default. Anything is possible, considering.
Possible double?
Is this the same you are referring to?
If so you know what will happen here
If not my apologies
rorytmeadows said:
Well, implications of this ruling down the road COULD mean that companies have to provide easy opportunities for side-loading. That could mean that Apple, Microsoft, etc., has to allow side-loading by default. Anything is possible, considering.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, no it couldn't. It's just not the case. All it does is make it legal for people to break the protections for those things. That's it. Nothing more.
RustyGrom said:
No, no it couldn't. It's just not the case. All it does is make it legal for people to break the protections for those things. That's it. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Until someone threatens legal action for not allowing side-loading without breaking warranty.
rorytmeadows said:
Until someone threatens legal action for not allowing side-loading without breaking warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The case would get tossed. It's completely their prerogative to do that.
All the case does is make jailbreaking your phone legal in respect to US law. It may or may not affect MS's stance on jailbreaking (they haven't publicly stated how they would deal with jailbreakers), but all this does is prevent MS from suing jailbreakers if they jailbreak their devices.
doministry said:
LOL let's hope!
But what about Europe?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Europe doesnt have the same stupid laws as US and jailbreaking/unlocking phones has always been legal here afaik
RustyGrom said:
The case would get tossed. It's completely their prerogative to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We'll see. In talks with the EFF, they might be working on that in the future.
rorytmeadows said:
We'll see. In talks with the EFF, they might be working on that in the future.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't get your hopes up. All the legislation is, is to prevent companies from suing individuals for creating or using jailbreaks on their phones. Microsoft or Apple will NOT have to support a phone that's running unauthorized software.
Bengal34 said:
Don't get your hopes up. All the legislation is, is to prevent companies from suing individuals for creating or using jailbreaks on their phones. Microsoft or Apple will NOT have to support a phone that's running unauthorized software.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Full operating systems don't work like this, so why would you assume otherwise? Think positive and read up!
rorytmeadows said:
Full operating systems don't work like this, so why would you assume otherwise? Think positive and read up!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Full OS's don't have to be jailbroken to run apps. Also, MSFT doesn't support the apps (unless they wrote it).
Seriously, stop. You're completely wrong. This ruling does not change anything in this respect. It ONLY means that we can't be sued. And I may be mistaken but I believe that people distributing ways to do it still can be.
Just learned about the Celebrite UFED device currently available and in use by law enforcement (Link listed below). The UFED connects to mobile devices (indeed the Epic) and extracts every bit of data - to include previously deleted data potentially. This means all text messages, passwords, browser history, banking information, Google accounts, Facebook, etc. will all be rendered as part of the public record once judicial precedings commence. And even if charges are dismissed and the record is sealed, the integrity of the extracted information has been compromised and cannot be viewed as safe.
So I am asking if any dev's might be able to restore the fourth amendment constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure through the magic that ya'll do. For those who might be thinking they have nothing to hide and this would only benefit criminals, keep in mind that silently giving up civil liberties is a slippery slope. It starts off small, but (conspiracy kook sounding, I know) turns into opening up your nightstands for government types before bed. While I support the need for efforts by law enforcement in assuring the safety of our communities, I DO NOT support trickery and loopholes around the judicial process like the overtly invasive Celebrite UFED technology. I'm interested to hear any thoughts on this issue and if anyone with more knowledge in this are than I will step forward to secure our privacy and peace of mind.
cellebrite-com (forum won't allow me to post actual link)
I don't have a problem with this at all. If your stupid enough to do criminal stuff on your phone then you should go to jail. In actuality the US Supreme Court ruled recently that a cell phone is not constitutionally protected via 4th Ammendment. I think someone was arrested and they looked at his messages and found someone else who conspired to commit a felony. They charged him as well....
Sent from Bonsai 7.0.3
Eh if you are caught doing something stupid then yes it MIGHT be necessary. But if its abuse then we have a right to defend yourself.
I'm pretty sure that there are certain criteria for it to work. It was in a thread somewhere. When I find it ill edit my post.
I think they were:
Must have a sd card inserted
Usb debug must be on
*something else I can't remember*
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
mmcgrat6 said:
Just learned about the Celebrite UFED device currently available and in use by law enforcement (Link listed below). The UFED connects to mobile devices (indeed the Epic) and extracts every bit of data - to include previously deleted data potentially. This means all text messages, passwords, browser history, banking information, Google accounts, Facebook, etc. will all be rendered as part of the public record once judicial precedings commence. And even if charges are dismissed and the record is sealed, the integrity of the extracted information has been compromised and cannot be viewed as safe.
So I am asking if any dev's might be able to restore the fourth amendment constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure through the magic that ya'll do. For those who might be thinking they have nothing to hide and this would only benefit criminals, keep in mind that silently giving up civil liberties is a slippery slope. It starts off small, but (conspiracy kook sounding, I know) turns into opening up your nightstands for government types before bed. While I support the need for efforts by law enforcement in assuring the safety of our communities, I DO NOT support trickery and loopholes around the judicial process like the overtly invasive Celebrite UFED technology. I'm interested to hear any thoughts on this issue and if anyone with more knowledge in this are than I will step forward to secure our privacy and peace of mind.
cellebrite-com (forum won't allow me to post actual link)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Firstly, "be part of the public record" is not true. Only evidence pertaining to the case at hand may be submitted in to some form of record. So while yes, there will be a person(s) scouring all of the information, anything irrelevant (ie, not usable as evidence) would not be saved.
With this in mind, how would this constitute illegal search and seizure? You said so yourself "once judicial precedings begin"; such as a search warrant. So there is no breaking of the constitution there...and furthermore, once a search warrant is obtained, anything of yours that falls within the scope of the warrant is subject to search. So, to me, this is no different than if a cop read through every page of your diary looking for evidence. Because the unneccessary stuff will not be saved.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA Premium App
I am actually a law student, and this is illegal as long as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy (ie: YOU HAVE A PASSWORD) As long as you have a lock password it is illegal. Also, I have used cellebrites and they don't usually work anyway unless the phone is unlocked, so just keep your phone locked and if an officer asks you to unlock it, tell them to get a search warrant.
Wow aren't we ignorant. If it were that simple. How many people who were on death row have they let out because years later they find evidence that clears them. How many times hagve you heard of someone spending years in jail for rape to find DNA evidence clears them?
Unfortunately people in law enforcement are human beings flawed like the rest of us. If they can read the data who is to say they can't put incrimintating data on just because they don't like you?
I think it is easy to make blanket ignorant statements like this totally ignoring reality unless you are the one who is wronged.
Top Nurse said:
I don't have a problem with this at all. If your stupid enough to do criminal stuff on your phone then you should go to jail. In actuality the US Supreme Court ruled recently that a cell phone is not constitutionally protected via 4th Ammendment. I think someone was arrested and they looked at his messages and found someone else who conspired to commit a felony. They charged him as well....
Sent from Bonsai 7.0.3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
My concern is not for criminals to be allowed to freely conduct their activities under protection from prosecution. And while cellphones have been ruled as not protected under the fourth amendment, handsets like the Epic interconnect to provide access into far more areas for personal data than a simple cellphone. in fact the courts have ruled that email, for example, IS protected by the fourth amendment. What this device represents is a "work around" into individual privacy.
More and more we as a nation have been relinquishing our privacy rights in support of protecting our safety and security. However, it's been almost a decade of this trend and the nation has been evolving ever since toward everybody knowing your business. We might not have anything to hide, but we must also have legal protections for cases which involve potentially corrupt individuals from abusing the systems which allow them use of this invasive device.
I agree, police officers are surprisingly uninformed of Supreme court law. They usually don't care until it affects them, like when the exclusionary rule told them "Hey, wanna **** these defendants over? Well now their free, good job asshole."
Plus there are crooked cops that could use your passwords they find on your phone (even if you aren't doing anything wrong on it) and sign in to your Facebook and IM to find out more info about you. Is this okay? If so then go to a communist state where you aren't allowed to have secrets from the government.
excellent point, squshy 7. But "part of the public record" was not meant to be taken as the only reason for concern. While protocol calls for the data to be disposed of if nothing happens, we don't live in a perfect world. Evidence is lost. Incorrect limbs get amputated. People forget to do things or believe something important has already been done. And corruption among those of authority can and does happen. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So why let it happen needlessly in the first place?
mmcgrat6 said:
excellent point, squshy 7. But "part of the public record" was not meant to be taken as the only reason for concern. While protocol calls for the data to be disposed of if nothing happens, we don't live in a perfect world. Evidence is lost. Incorrect limbs get amputated. People forget to do things or believe something important has already been done. And corruption among those of authority can and does happen. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So why let it happen needlessly in the first place?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly dude, I've come to terms with the fact that mistrusting everyone in charge for fear of corruption is unfounded. Its actually much simpler than that.
Most humans are idiots.
Hence our messed up world. Not evil. Just stupidity.
Once one realizes that, it becomes alot easier. Because then you'll see that there is truly nothing you can do about it.
Lol. Im a misanthrope to the max
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA Premium App
Deleted 10 char
Benjamin Franklin said:
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And that sums up MY opinion on this matter, but really, just look at my previous post and just keep your phone locked.
Censura_Umbra said:
I agree, police officers are surprisingly uninformed of Supreme court law. They usually don't care until it affects them, like when the exclusionary rule told them "Hey, wanna **** these defendants over? Well now their free, good job asshole."
Plus there are crooked cops that could use your passwords they find on your phone (even if you aren't doing anything wrong on it) and sign in to your Facebook and IM to find out more info about you. Is this okay? If so then go to a communist state where you aren't allowed to have secrets from the government.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why are you putting illegal stuff on your Facebook? What's there that can't be retrieved via birth records, driver's licenses, and marriage certificates...all of which are already in the government's records?
A crooked cop can plant any kind of evidence they want to incriminate you. It doesn't have to be on your phone. Heck it's probably not even worth their effort.
Any decent lawyer can get that stuff tossed anyway. If anything, it's harder than ever to successfully prosecute someone, not easier.
And really, as resource strapped as police departments are, they're not looking at you at all unless you ARE doing something illegal. Don't use the word "wrong" because it's not necessarily the same as "illegal."
Censura_Umbra said:
And that sums up MY opinion on this matter, but really, just look at my previous post and just keep your phone locked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You confuse freedom with anarchy. You're free to do what you want. You're also free to accept any and all consequences.
Censura_Umbra said:
I am actually a law student, and this is illegal as long as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy (ie: YOU HAVE A PASSWORD) As long as you have a lock password it is illegal. Also, I have used cellebrites and they don't usually work anyway unless the phone is unlocked, so just keep your phone locked and if an officer asks you to unlock it, tell them to get a search warrant.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This. The cellebrites we use at Sprint at least, require the device to be unlocked(unless the Android has USB debugging on already, in which case I believe it can bypass the lock). If a blackberry has a password on it, it pops up on the machine requesting you enter the password on the machine.
So technically it can "bypass" your lock, but only if you enter the lock on the cellebrite machine.
LOL the cellbrites carriers have obviously were only meant to transfer contacts, pictures, etc. By error, Ive been to extract this information even when the phone was locked. Im sure they can program a machine to bypass all of that.
Uh and yes EVERY american must give up some freedom for security. This is nothing new. As long as you dont do some stupid ****, then you have nothing to worry about. Anyway, most of us on here have rooted phones. You know rooted phones exposes your passwords, etc right?
socos25 said:
Wow aren't we ignorant. If it were that simple. How many people who were on death row have they let out because years later they find evidence that clears them. How many times hagve you heard of someone spending years in jail for rape to find DNA evidence clears them?
Unfortunately people in law enforcement are human beings flawed like the rest of us. If they can read the data who is to say they can't put incrimintating data on just because they don't like you?
I think it is easy to make blanket ignorant statements like this totally ignoring reality unless you are the one who is wronged.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not ignorant by any shape of the imagination, as I have experience on both sides of the law. As someone said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the other ones that have been tried." Nothing is perfect and innocent people may be jailed or executed. Not saying that is good, but that it works most of the time...which is why I live in the USA.
If you have lived as long as I have then you would know that things go up and down (conservative & liberal) in this country. Now we are in a conservative swing and we do need some balance as we move away from the days of coddling criminals and granting more rights to them than the rest of us get.
Sent from Bonsai 7.0.3
I'd like to say this..
1) your locks are pointless if you have clockworkmod installed...as they can just backup your rom lol..as cwm has no password protect option...
2) You can always restore data...1 wipe i never enough..I had my sd cards erased a few times...I was able to recover 100% the contents..to do a proper wipe you gotta wipe 7 times using 0's method and alternating 1's and 0's..to note..this isnt going to make the data unrecoverable..just more expensive to recover...the point in wiping data is not that its unrecoverable but wipe it enough so that it isnt worth it financially for the other side to recover it.
b15love said:
Uh and yes EVERY american must give up some freedom for security. This is nothing new.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
actually, this IS new, and those that believe the above quoted 'line' deserve neither freedom or security.
For example, is it ok for a police officer who does a traffic stop for improper lane change (for example) to snatch out the cellebrite device and ask you to hand over your cell phone ? NO.. without a search warrant or probable cause (at the very least) he has no right or authority to dig around in your phone.
If you were just involved in an accident, then i could see the possibility of scanning your phone to determine if you were texting while driving, thus contributing to the accident. Officers in Michigan could be using this device for routine traffic stops according to this article
Basically, we've ventured off topic anyway.. the question that remains (regardless of the 'conspiracy theory' sounding debate) is:
is it possible for the devs to prevent this device from scanning our phones ?
The DMCA want to make it illegal for us to root or jailbreak phones, tablets and gaming consoles. If this happens then we lose the ability to customize, fix bugs, and correct security issues on our devices that we pay money for. Xda developers will go away , and so will software innovation. Think about what we will lose Cyanogenmod, Miui, Juggernaut, Beastmod all of it gone and so will the money developers make selling root apps on the market this is important. If you think this is silly tell Steve Kondik AKA cyanogen hes the one who brought this to light for many people.
the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
https://www.eff.org/pages/jailbreaking-not-crime-tell-copyright-office-free-your-devices
Do some homework before blowing this off this is serious! Device manufacturers claim Root/jailbreaking violates Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which carries stiff penalties.
Are you seriously concerned about this? They can't stop us, and if ever we need to send our devices back we just return to stock...simple as that.
Yes, they can't stop us. But the current position on rooting and jailbreaking is only a temporary exemption from the DMCA. This exemption needs to be periodically renewed or it will expire and we will be subject to he DMCA which makes it easy to argue we are breaking the law. That alone would probably have a chilling effect on the rooting communities as the unofficial support from manufacturers dries up. I doubt Samsung will openly support a community perceived as breaking the law.
That said... yes, we need to speak up and help the larger rooting/jailbreaking community to renew this exemption. If we don't speak up, it will die and the FTC will not renew the exemption.
iLeopard said:
Are you seriously concerned about this? They can't stop us, and if ever we need to send our devices back we just return to stock...simple as that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well the question really is if providers have the ability to accurately see what your phone is running and will they be forced to block our service if the DMCA threatens to sue the actual companies.
The real concern here isn’t about our ability to root/jail break our OWN devices or not. It’s about control! These scumbags along with the a**holes that support SOPA and PIPA simply want to keep us in check so they can shove their BS down our throats for the price of whatever they want.
If this happens then no one would ever upgrade phones and the market would take a big hit. We true rooter would aways stay on old phones to keep root.
xile6 said:
If this happens then no one would ever upgrade phones and the market would take a big hit. We true rooter would aways stay on old phones to keep root.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd rather have a 100% stock sII than a modded up g1
anyway if google and the manufacturers want us not to root they will remove the ability to let us.
Smartphones = computers. Its legal to do whatever you want with a computer so long as you do not commit cyber crime.
Desktop pc -> laptop -> notebook -> netbook -> tablet -> smartphone
All these devices are the same... the only difference between them is the size & spec. They are all essentially computers.
If you don't support this by educating yourself and then registering your comments with the US Copyright Office within the next 8 days, like the Software Freedom Law Center has, what do you think will eventually happen to websites like xdadevelopers? Making jailbreaking/rooting illegal would apply to all instances, on devices both old and new. So you would be liable if you used such a device, (although it would be difficult to catch everyone), disseminated information on how to do this to your device, (goodbye all websites that help folks root), or sold services or software that helped someone root their device.
And tri4life's comments are accurate. With these kinds of laws in place, service providers would want, or may be forced to, develop systems which could tell if your smartphone is rooted and then turn off service, and likely put you into a queue for a visit from an "RIAA type" lawsuit. BTW, the "lock-in AppStore you can't change the OS" model is coming to personal computers as well. So not only is this a stand against this behavior on the smartphone front, but also in case this starts to creep into the PC world, as well. The Software Freedom Law Center comments go into some interesting details on this.
If you don't think it's serious than you should actually read the law that's in question here. For fun, you can skip down to the end where it describes the civil and criminal penalties that apply if the exemption is not in place. So not only do we need to support this strongly now, we need to work to make this exemption permanent.
Good Luck..
jordanishere said:
Smartphones = computers. Its legal to do whatever you want with a computer so long as you do not commit cyber crime.
Desktop pc -> laptop -> notebook -> netbook -> tablet -> smartphone
All these devices are the same... the only difference between them is the size & spec. They are all essentially computers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not entirely true. Some parts of all those devices might contain firmware that is copyrighted and encrypted. The DMCA would make it illegal to circumvent that firmware encryption. The only reason it's legal right now is because of the FTC exemption who ruled it's OK if we're not breaking any IP copyrights.
IMHO, SOPA/PIPA are all expansions on this kind of heavy handed lawmaking and is driven by the RIAA and MPAA. They've been going after 8 year olds and grandmothers just because they'll probably settle and pony up even tho they didn't do anything wrong. But don't misunderstand me. Piracy of IP is a big issue and should be dealt with but siphoning granny's bank accounts and making it illegal to mod your devices is not the way to do it.
We should be asking why we still need these laws if they can still go for an off-shore target like MegaUpload. I think they already have the tools they need and should stop legislating what I do with and to my technology. The scary thing is SOPA/PIPA are NOT DEAD... just tabled for now. I'd bet (not much) that once it's out of our recent memory they'll pass it so fast it'll be law before we can even fight it.
All this recent laws worry me more and more that we are loosing what so many fought and die for over the decades, it's being forgotten that it is By the People for the People not By the People for a few.
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry
why in the world would android continue to be open source then? as Well, HTC allows rooting of devices pretty easily, As well as samsung has their new open to the public Dev programs, so their probably gonna follow HTC with open rooting. I really doubt Android phone manufacturer's will let it go on for very long if it did end up being illegal. Why else does anyone else buy android phones? I think they know that.
xile6 said:
If this happens then no one would ever upgrade phones and the market would take a big hit. We true rooter would aways stay on old phones to keep root.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sammy has been kicking out Android phones with unlocked boot loaders from the get go (IN YOUR FACE HTC), so rooting and customizing is almost a given from the manufacturer, but not from the carriers. If it becomes illegal, then it becomes a slippery slope for all of us!
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
lawalty said:
Sammy has been kicking out Android phones with unlocked boot loaders from the get go (IN YOUR FACE HTC), so rooting and customizing is almost a given from the manufacturer, but not from the carriers. If it becomes illegal, then it becomes a slippery slope for all of us!
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/26/dmca-update-makes-new-phone-unlocking-illegal/
This makes me really sad... thanks op for bringing this up to attention. Not being able to root an Android device sucks a lot of fun outta it all.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app
It was just ruled that it is not illegal to Jailbreak an iphone, tablets may be a different story though. I haven't heard anything regarding android devices.. I would assume it falls under the same category.. Either way it's not gonna stop anyone from doing it
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
"Every generation needs a new revolution" -Thomas Jefferson
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app
Here is a guide for those who may be confused:
Rooting/Jailbreaking:
Smartphones - YES
Tablets - NO
Unlocking
If your phone was purchased prior to January 2013 - YES
New Phone - NO
Phones purchased after January 2013 can be unlocked with carrier's permission
Unrelated:
Blind people can now use DRM stripping software to enable read-allowed function on eBooks purchased legally. However, to supply blind people with the software necessary to do so violates the "trafficking" provision under the rule, and is illegal.
What is not clear....
Carrier unlocking or bootloader unlocking...
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda premium
Carrier unlocking will be illegal, unless carrier approval.
C. Wireless telephone handsets – interoperability with alternative
networks
Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that
enable a wireless telephone handset originally acquired from
the operator of a wireless telecommunications network or
retailer no later than ninety days after the effective date of this
exemption to connect to a different wireless
telecommunications network, if the operator of the wireless
communications network to which the handset is locked has
failed to unlock it within a reasonable period of time following
a request by the owner of the wireless telephone handset, and
when circumvention is initiated by the owner, an individual
consumer, who is also the owner of the copy of the computer
program in such wireless telephone handset, solely in order to
connect to a different wireless telecommunications network,
and such access to the network is authorized by the operator of
the network.
Bootloaders fall under the purview of jailbreak/root:
B. Wireless telephone handsets – software interoperability
Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to
execute lawfully obtained software applications, where
circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling
interoperability of such applications with computer programs
on the telephone handset.
sdlopez83 said:
What is not clear....
Carrier unlocking or bootloader unlocking...
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Spoke with my lawyer. Says I have a case against samsung.
1.) Samsung faild to password protect update option
As my almost 2 year old managed to update me to 4.4 from JB 4.1.2. When I did not want 4.3 or 4.4 due to knox.
2.) The knox feature was not advertised when selling the note 2 and other phones sold prior to introducing knox to our phones.
I don't have the money to fork over legal expenses. So lawyer said if I can find more then 400 samsung users who are stuck with knox they would take the case.
If you wish to join reply to post. Once we reach 400 will contact you all with an for proper information.
Pls only use this to count yourself in. Add a comment if you wish when adding yourself but pls no chating. Will make it easy to count who's in this way.
I'm in
rogersb11 said:
I'm in
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They should have given the option when introducing 4.3 and 4.4 of having knox secure boot or not having knox at all.
I'm sure they could have introduced jb 4.3 and kk 4.4 and any other updates without knox and knox secure boot.
droideastcoast said:
They should have given the option when introducing 4.3 and 4.4 of having knox secure boot or not having knox at all.
I'm sure they could have introduced jb 4.3 and kk 4.4 and any other updates without knox and knox secure boot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bingo. Option is what it should be
Count on me
Throw me in the mix, can I go in twice? I have 2 notes dueces.
I'm in too.
Sent from my SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
So am I.
Tap, tap says the wicked Note +₩● ?
Kind of sad that ppl are complaining about knox secure boot and trip but no one is willing to step up and take samsung to court?
Come on guys.
This could also be the answer to removing the secure boot.
If noone steps up then samsung will continue to do this kind of crap.
In bit my Knox is tripped
I like Knox... I don't see what the big deal is. Lose the ability to root like Apple so devs have to pull a jailbreak every new version that comes out by vulnerability hunting? I've come to the conclusion that there is no need for me to root anymore. I have become the normal smartphone user who doesn't need more than what comes stock after all these years rooting and bug hunting. It is now a waste of time for me.
And you know what else?
There are millions of people who are just like me who could give a rat's ass about how Knox stops me from rooting my phone.
Before you go flaming, understand that I am talking about myself and the other millions who have no clue that XDA even exists. You can do what you need to feel better about yourself by gathering a class action lawsuit against a multi-billion corporation. Good luck with that.
[email protected] said:
I like Knox... I don't see what the big deal is. Lose the ability to root like Apple so devs have to pull a jailbreak every new version that comes out by vulnerability hunting? I've come to the conclusion that there is no need for me to root anymore. I have become the normal smartphone user who doesn't need more than what comes stock after all these years rooting and bug hunting. It is now a waste of time for me.
And you know what else?
There are millions of people who are just like me who could give a rat's ass about how Knox stops me from rooting my phone.
Before you go flaming, understand that I am talking about myself and the other millions who have no clue that XDA even exists. You can do what you need to feel better about yourself by gathering a class action lawsuit against a multi-billion corporation. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This post convinced me to join the lawsuit. That's you opinion and it'a fair,
However I like having choice, freedom, and ownership as a consumer. I don't like having updates remove and change features that I orginally paid for
Cryingmoose said:
This post convinced me to join the lawsuit. That's you opinion and it'a fair,
However I like having choice, freedom, and ownership as a consumer. I don't like having updates remove and change features that I orginally paid for
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm In
I am sorry but after reading this thread everyday I have to finally say something. You guys are trying to sue Samsung for adding security to your phone to prevent it from being easily hacked, your personal and banking information being stolen, unauthorized use, and not being able to root it and put unauthorized software on it? Got a little bit of news for you, you better start looking for some old phones on swappa and ebay because there are talks that Google is incorporating some of Knox into L OS version. Also Sprint and T-mobile have no issues rooting with the same version of Knox...so maybe you should be looking at what your carrier is doing.
And as for a 2 year old accepting the update, you had options to lock your phone with many different methods. This 2 year old accepted the option to first download it, wait while the file downloaded, then also accepted the option to install now? I do not think this lawyer has all the information. Especially when Google and Samsung on the devil's advocate side would face a much larger lawsuit if doing nothing to try and prevent the millions of non-XDA users from getting their phone hacked. Knox and locked bootloaders have nothing to do with trying to prevent the 100,000 XDA AT&T or Verizon Samsung users from rooting. It is to make the phones as secure as possible for military and business applications.
Here is sammobile's report on "L" and Knox: http://www.sammobile.com/2014/06/25...egrate-knox-into-androids-next-major-release/
KennyG123 said:
I am sorry but after reading this thread everyday I have to finally say something. You guys are trying to sue Samsung for adding security to your phone to prevent it from being easily hacked, your personal and banking information being stolen, unauthorized use, and not being able to root it and put unauthorized software on it? Got a little bit of news for you, you better start looking for some old phones on swappa and ebay because there are talks that Google is incorporating some of Knox into L OS version. Also Sprint and T-mobile have no issues rooting with the same version of Knox...so maybe you should be looking at what your carrier is doing.
And as for a 2 year old accepting the update, you had options to lock your phone with many different methods. This 2 year old accepted the option to first download it, wait while the file downloaded, then also accepted the option to install now? I do not think this lawyer has all the information. Especially when Google and Samsung on the devil's advocate side would face a much larger lawsuit if doing nothing to try and prevent the millions of non-XDA users from getting their phone hacked. Knox and locked bootloaders have nothing to do with trying to prevent the 100,000 XDA AT&T or Verizon Samsung users from rooting. It is to make the phones as secure as possible for military and business applications.
Here is sammobile's report on "L" and Knox: http://www.sammobile.com/2014/06/25...egrate-knox-into-androids-next-major-release/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a gulf of difference between a device being advertised with a feature and shipping with it and a mandatory update installing said feature.
The carriers didn't even disclose the ramifications of installing OTAs containing Knox.
I don't have an issue with updates changing features over time but something that alters your relationship with your property in such a fashion should be opt-in and after disclosing the ramifications.
TerryMathews said:
There's a gulf of difference between a device being advertised with a feature and shipping with it and a mandatory update installing said feature.
The carriers didn't even disclose the ramifications of installing OTAs containing Knox.
I don't have an issue with updates changing features over time but something that alters your relationship with your property in such a fashion should be opt-in and after disclosing the ramifications.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At no point did Samsung or AT&T guarantee the rootability of a device. And remember, the other millions of owners don't know about these "ramifications" as I am sure they are happy to know that their phone is more secure. Windows updates your system constantly for security updates. If that suddenly stops a Pr0n site from showing up on your PC because it is now considered malicious should they have notified you? The updates do nothing to prevent the out of the box use intended by the device. I am merely stating that this suit has no legal grounds. If you know about rooting and know about hacking, you know not to accept updates until you find out what they are. You should know ways of preventing those updates, and you should know how to secure your phone from anyone using it to accept those updates without your permission. The other millions of users out there can keep moving along blissfully happy that their phone is constantly being updated and not left in the dust.
Why should the carriers disclose that your device be more difficult to root? Rooting is not an authorized procedure supported by the carriers at all! I missed the disclosure by Sony on my PS3 that accepting the update which will allow me to access the Playstation Network is also to prevent jailbreaking it on the current revision. Add to that, read the OP...it states nothing about the carrier. It is a suit directed at Samsung. Knox does not prevent any use of the device which is authorized and supported by the carrier. Also Knox does not prevent rooting as seen on T-Mobile and Sprint forums as well as the international forums.
But I wish you guys luck with the suit and hope the lawyer is accepting this Pro Bono and no one has to dish out any non-refundable legal fees. I just wanted you all to be better informed of what you are asking.
If I'm not mistaken, the Federal government (USA) guaranteed end users the right to root access of our phones, and recently upheld that law. But does Knox really stop you from rooting it? Luckily I have avoided it because I haven't had a stock ROM for more than a few minutes on my phone since I bought it
KennyG123 said:
At no point did Samsung or AT&T guarantee the rootability of a device. And remember, the other millions of owners don't know about these "ramifications" as I am sure they are happy to know that their phone is more secure. Windows updates your system constantly for security updates. If that suddenly stops a Pr0n site from showing up on your PC because it is now considered malicious should they have notified you? The updates do nothing to prevent the out of the box use intended by the device. I am merely stating that this suit has no legal grounds. If you know about rooting and know about hacking, you know not to accept updates until you find out what they are. You should know ways of preventing those updates, and you should know how to secure your phone from anyone using it to accept those updates without your permission. The other millions of users out there can keep moving along blissfully happy that their phone is constantly being updated and not left in the dust.
Why should the carriers disclose that your device be more difficult to root? Rooting is not an authorized procedure supported by the carriers at all! I missed the disclosure by Sony on my PS3 that accepting the update which will allow me to access the Playstation Network is also to prevent jailbreaking it on the current revision. Add to that, read the OP...it states nothing about the carrier. It is a suit directed at Samsung. Knox does not prevent any use of the device which is authorized and supported by the carrier. Also Knox does not prevent rooting as seen on T-Mobile and Sprint forums as well as the international forums.
But I wish you guys luck with the suit and hope the lawyer is accepting this Pro Bono and no one has to dish out any non-refundable legal fees. I just wanted you all to be better informed of what you are asking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a difference between guaranteeing a product's suitability for given task and actively working to reduce that capability.
For instance, let's look at car recalls. Some of them impact how your car behaves, its gas mileage, or its service schedule. Ever notice how the dealer needs your consent before modifying your vehicle?
Your example of Windows Update is equally flawed. Windows Update is an opt-in service which in fact reinforces my earlier point that Knox or system updates in general should be opt-in or at least have a provision for opt-out that doesn't involve rooting your device.
Court cases aren't decided on popularity. If they were, Roe v. Wade would have gone a very different direction (as an example).
I hope you're not a lawyer Kenny...
Honestly... there's no point in arguing. Whomever goes and does this lawsuit, have fun, good luck, and I hope no money comes out of your own pocket. Your XDA soap box will get you nowhere so go out and do what you have to do to get your rocks off. Even if you even do succeed, enjoy the years of counter-suits and appeals.
TerryMathews said:
There is a difference between guaranteeing a product's suitability for given task and actively working to reduce that capability.
For instance, let's look at car recalls. Some of them impact how your car behaves, its gas mileage, or its service schedule. Ever notice how the dealer needs your consent before modifying your vehicle?
Your example of Windows Update is equally flawed. Windows Update is an opt-in service which in fact reinforces my earlier point that Knox or system updates in general should be opt-in or at least have a provision for opt-out that doesn't involve rooting your device.
Court cases aren't decided on popularity. If they were, Roe v. Wade would have gone a very different direction (as an example).
I hope you're not a lawyer Kenny...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no further point in arguing with you as clearly you are not a lawyer either. No one mentioned popularity. Your arguments are misconstrued and have nothing to do with the focus of the lawsuit. You should reread the "opening statement" a 2 year old "accepted" the update meaning optional, not mandatory, and there are ways for anyone who can search to not accept the OTA or update.
Have a nice day and good luck. As I stated earlier, Knox is now moving to Google and the next version of Android and it also does not prevent rooting if you would just check out the other carriers. This is the main flaw in this law suit. Lawyered
Samsung KNOX?.....I remember there is a time AMD is very popular and very demanding not because its better than INTEL proc. Computer enthusiast go for AMD it's not because it is cheaper, its because they feel the freedom of doing something to enjoy, to explore, to over clock to the extent. Then Intel decided to sell unlock proccessor, and suddently intel market change. My point is not all people buy phone just to call and recieve call. they want to explore and have freedom to enjoy it to the extent, unlock it, put custom rom and develop. I feel they start taking away this freedom we had, as Doc say "Leaving Samsung won't get you away from Knox anymore. Google is going to begin using it in ALL android builds. Probably starting with Android"L". I know there's a lot of knowledgeable people on XDA who is enjoying and itching to break this barrel. We have to wait for this hope, i have faith.
gmenik6 said:
Samsung KNOX?.....I remember there is a time AMD is very popular and very demanding not because its better than INTEL proc. Computer enthusiast go for AMD it's not because it is cheaper, its because they feel the freedom of doing something to enjoy, to explore, to over clock to the extent. Then Intel decided to sell unlock proccessor, and suddently intel market change. My point is not all people buy phone just to call and recieve call. they want to explore and have freedom to enjoy it to the extent, unlock it, put custom rom and develop. I feel they start taking away this freedom we had, as Doc say "Leaving Samsung won't get you away from Knox anymore. Google is going to begin using it in ALL android builds. Probably starting with Android"L". I know there's a lot of knowledgeable people on XDA who is enjoying and itching to break this barrel. We have to wait for this hope, i have faith.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do realize that the inclusion of Knox has nothing to do with trying to prevent rooting. It is security to prevent criminal hackers from getting all your banking and personal information off of your phone. Knox to date has also not prevented rooting. Even the phones with locked bootloaders and Knox have achieved root. The locked bootloaders are what prevent certain phone models from flashing non-stock based ROMs. If you do use your phone for more than calls and text then you should be happy they are trying to make them more secure for those uses. Will Knox slow down development....a little...as work arounds to the secure kernels and constant checks will take more time to get all the bugs out. Bottom line though is to stay away from carriers that lock bootloaders...that is the message you want to send. Push for them to offer unlock solutions the way HTC does for the 1% of community that is on XDA. Remember...security is meant for the 99% of phone buyers that know nothing about XDA or root...and for corporate and military contract sales.
KennyG123 said:
You do realize that the inclusion of Knox has nothing to do with trying to prevent rooting. It is security to prevent criminal hackers from getting all your banking and personal information off of your phone. Knox to date has also not prevented rooting. Even the phones with locked bootloaders and Knox have achieved root. The locked bootloaders are what prevent certain phone models from flashing non-stock based ROMs. If you do use your phone for more than calls and text then you should be happy they are trying to make them more secure for those uses. Will Knox slow down development....a little...as work arounds to the secure kernels and constant checks will take more time to get all the bugs out. Bottom line though is to stay away from carriers that lock bootloaders...that is the message you want to send. Push for them to offer unlock solutions the way HTC does for the 1% of community that is on XDA. Remember...security is meant for the 99% of phone buyers that know nothing about XDA or root...and for corporate and military contract sales.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
just everybody knows, I don't think knox will not secure you phone from criminals. if not thousand hundred of people selling their phone everyday knowing factory reset and taking out sdcard will not leaved a trace, it's not true...I know you know that. And what I believed company protect their interest before consumer.
murayoshi said:
just everybody knows, I don't think knox will not secure you phone from criminals. if not thousand hundred of people selling their phone everyday knowing factory reset and taking out sdcard will not leaved a trace, it's not true...I know you know that. And what I believed company protect their interest before consumer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We are talking about criminals hacking your phone while you still possess it. Perhaps you are not aware of all the hacking and identity theft that has gone on in Android over the past years. Exploits would be forced onto your phone giving hackers access to much of your phone.
And in reality, if used as intended, Knox can protect the data stored in its containers. It is encrypted to DoD standards and if any tampering is detected it breaks access to those containers. Sure, any encryption can be broken, but it would take a very talented and determined hacker to first regain access and then break that encryption. It may not prevent hardcore industrial espionage, but it certainly will protect a lot of sensitive info from bring had by most identity thieves or from being inadvertently released to the general public.
Knox was never intended to secure the average users data. Its intended for use by security professionals in an Enterprise environment.
There are plenty of solutions already out there for people to protect themselves with, most simply just elect to not use it. Number 1 IMO would be simple common sense! Unfortunately, many replace this with ignorance and end up paying for it with increasing frequency.
DocHoliday77 said:
And in reality, if used as intended, Knox can protect the data stored in its containers. It is encrypted to DoD standards and if any tampering is detected it breaks access to those containers. Sure, any encryption can be broken, but it would take a very talented and determined hacker to first regain access and then break that encryption. It may not prevent hardcore industrial espionage, but it certainly will protect a lot of sensitive info from bring had by most identity thieves or from being inadvertently released to the general public.
Knox was never intended to secure the average users data. Its intended for use by security professionals in an Enterprise environment.
There are plenty of solutions already out there for people to protect themselves with, most simply just elect to not use it. Number 1 IMO would be simple common sense! Unfortunately, many replace this with ignorance and end up paying for it with increasing frequency.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I work for DVD, that made me chuckle... If you guys only knew how incompetent the IT department is.
Sent from my Amazon Jem using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Shack70 said:
I work for DVD, that made me chuckle... If you guys only knew how incompetent the IT department is.
Sent from my Amazon Jem using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im assuming you meant DoD, right? And yeah....contractors....lol!
No offense to those who really do try and really do care, but man, it does seem like so many are just along for the government ride!
Good info on KNOX, thanks