Develop Bugs

NEWS: WP7 side-loading of apps...It's going to be difficult to stop it now! YAY!

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.

Interesting LEGAL question about ROOT

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.

Fair use act and new the Final rule of 2012

" Jailbreaking or unlocking allows users to install non-vendor-approved software on cellphones and other electronic devices.But the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other advocates of digital rights say that practice constitutes non-infringing use permitted under Section 117 of the Copyright Act. They urged the Copyright Office to renew critical exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as part of the rulemaking process it conducts every three years Ending previous jailbreaking exemptions, from 2006 and 2010, would lead to higher device prices, increased electronic waste, higher costs associated with switching service providers and widespread mobile customer "lock-in," according to the comments it submitted in December 2011. It applauded the decision of the Copyright Office to uphold those exemptions this past weekend." -http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/30/51815.htm
So with this ruling being made in the consumers favor, we are allowed to Jailbreak Iphones Ipods, I-everything, all handsets and so on except tablets. Why then are we locked on the Ion? Is this not an infringement on the law that allows us to do what we want, to an extent, to all devices? Is it under Sony or ATT that we have to seek the thing we long for? Sony doesn't even have live support for our phone and as I have heard Sony passes everything bad onto ATT and ATT to Sony. Is this a game we are in between Consumers, the law, and what the companies feel they should be able to do?
If this is the case is it not illegal for Apple to continually try to block Jail breaking attempts by developers? By law we are allowed to install software not provided by the producer.
So, who holds the key to the Ion? Why is the key kept from us? How will we get our hands on OUR key?

Yes we are allowed to jailbreak but that doesn't mean they have to provide us with the steps to do it or make it an easy process.
As for the ion and the bootloader its a tough call who is controlling it. Sony is the manufacturer yet they have an exclusive deal with AT&T to carry the phone. It would be interesting to see this court ruling applied against AT&T/Sony to get the bootloader unlock allowed but I doubt it will change anything as again nothing says they have to tell us how to do it or give us a procedure for it.

I wish the bootloader fell in this category but I don't think it does.
Sent from my LT28i using xda premium

Vfan23 said:
I wish the bootloader fell in this category but I don't think it does.
Sent from my LT28i using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya, all this really covers is consumers having the right to install whatever apps they want on there devices. no matter where there from. Android is already open in this regard. Sounds like it more applies to apples locked down appstore. I'd be interested to see if ios will come with the option to install non market apps.

Unlocking cell phones update

Hey XDA, I got this today from the petition I signed trying to fight for our right to unlock and change carriers. I am copying and pasting the letter..... it is lenghty, but worth the read through......
It's Time to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking
By R. David Edelman, Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation, & Privacy
Thank you for sharing your views on cell phone unlocking with us through your petition on our We the People platform. Last week the White House brought together experts from across government who work on telecommunications, technology, and copyright policy, and we're pleased to offer our response.
The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.
This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs -- even if it isn't the one on which the device was first activated. All consumers deserve that flexibility.
The White House's position detailed in this response builds on some critical thinking done by the President's chief advisory Agency on these matters: the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). For more context and information on the technical aspects of the issue, you can review the NTIA's letter to the Library of Congress' Register of Copyrights (.pdf), voicing strong support for maintaining the previous exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for cell phone carrier unlocking.
Contrary to the NTIA's recommendation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that phones purchased after January of this year would no longer be exempted from the DMCA. The law gives the Librarian the authority to establish or eliminate exceptions -- and we respect that process. But it is also worth noting the statement the Library of Congress released today on the broader public policy concerns of the issue. Clearly the White House and Library of Congress agree that the DMCA exception process is a rigid and imperfect fit for this telecommunications issue, and we want to ensure this particular challenge for mobile competition is solved.
So where do we go from here?
The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.
We also believe the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with its responsibility for promoting mobile competition and innovation, has an important role to play here. FCC Chairman Genachowski today voiced his concern about mobile phone unlocking (.pdf), and to complement his efforts, NTIA will be formally engaging with the FCC as it addresses this urgent issue.
Finally, we would encourage mobile providers to consider what steps they as businesses can take to ensure that their customers can fully reap the benefits and features they expect when purchasing their devices.
We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, the wireless and mobile phone industries, and most importantly you -- the everyday consumers who stand to benefit from this greater flexibility -- to ensure our laws keep pace with changing technology, protect the economic competitiveness that has led to such innovation in this space, and offer consumers the flexibility and freedoms they deserve.
E4GT Rom-a-holic. Running anything that looks cool at the time
"This is the Droid I have been looking for!"

I think all of it is a load of crap. Its benefitting all but those of us who want to unlock our devices...........

moparfreak426 said:
I think all of it is a load of crap. Its benefitting all but those of us who want to unlock our devices...........
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you even read the letter?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda app-developers app

graydiggy said:
Did you even read the letter?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mopar cant read man. Cut him some slack, kid can't even keep his pants on in public.
I like to break stuff!

-EViL-KoNCEPTz- said:
Mopar cant read man. Cut him some slack, kid can't even keep his pants on in public.
I like to break stuff!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol... i read it granted half asleep but from what I see it's still illegal and they have to follow in compliance with fcc and such
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean

moparfreak426 said:
lol... i read it granted half asleep but from what I see it's still illegal and they have to follow in compliance with fcc and such
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As of right now it is still illegal. In time things will get fixed. Cell companies will lose a lot of money because no one will spend huge amounts of money on a phone off contract now. If I can't unlock a phone to use on another carrier, why spend good money on it?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda app-developers app

I wonder, how chaotic would it be with no restrictions on any our devices and such....
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean

moparfreak426 said:
I wonder, how chaotic would it be with no restrictions on any our devices and such....
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not all that chaotic. Both the original service providers of the devices and second party providers will make boatloads of money.

graydiggy said:
Not all that chaotic. Both the original service providers of the devices and second party providers will make boatloads of money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would be super awesome if cdma devices were also gsm and gsms were all also cdma.... I'd like to have an Asus pasfone
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean

moparfreak426 said:
It would be super awesome if cdma devices were also gsm and gsms were all also cdma.... I'd like to have an Asus pasfone
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hehe but there is... CDMA world phones ;p

I read yesterday that the major companies are trying to keep the law I place by selling locked and UN locked versions of all new phones. So basically we will get to pay them more for a right we should have as a paying customer.
E4GT Rom-a-holic. Running anything that looks cool at the time
"This is the Droid I have been looking for!"

Febby said:
hehe but there is... CDMA world phones ;p
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I mean if all were interchangeable... like 4core gs3, Asus padfone, etc
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean

Samsung Knox

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