I'm currently running an HTC touch pro 2 and i still have my HTC touch pro. I turned my TP1 on the other day for the first time in many months and the phone picked up a text message, not only did it pick it up, it picked it up at the same time my TP2 did. Unfortunately it hasn't happened since.
What i'd like to know, is there a way i can emulate the IMIE number on the tp2, so that i can have both my TP2 and my TP1 working at the same time.
I want to be able to use my TP1 as a full data device while i make my calls on my TP2 or vice versa.
If you can't post the answer here for what ever reason feel free to private message me.
*edit it will recieve every txt message that is sent to my number but it won't send and it won't take incoming calls.
Good luck with that, cause that aint gonna happen. Well, at least not anyway that I can possibly think of. Carriers wont allow more than one phone per mobile number. They say it isn't possible, but I personally think it IS possible and that they just wont allow it. Technically, it should be able to work. But the problems would fall with the GPS. Even if GPS was on in one device while off on the other, they couldn't track someone if they wanted to. I'm sure there are other reasons to this. I have never heard of what you are experiencing. They probabbly didn't fully remove the old phone's IMIE data from the system, hence why you can receive texts but not send anything. What service are you on?
THE-COPS said:
Good luck with that, cause that aint gonna happen. Well, at least not anyway that I can possibly think of. Carriers wont allow more than one phone per mobile number. They say it isn't possible, but I personally think it IS possible and that they just wont allow it. Technically, it should be able to work. But the problems would fall with the GPS. Even if GPS was on in one device while off on the other, they couldn't track someone if they wanted to. I'm sure there are other reasons to this. I have never heard of what you are experiencing. They probabbly didn't fully remove the old phone's IMIE data from the system, hence why you can receive texts but not send anything. What service are you on?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1) unfortunately telus.
2) The GPS on my phones has been completely deactivated except for when I want to turn it on. I refuse to allow someone to turn it on remotely, also in Canada that's akin to wireless phone tapping so the cops can't do it. And even if they could legally i'd still reprogram my phone so they can't.
3) That's my point. If they didn't fully remove it and my old phone can still get the txt messages that means they can re-add the old MEIE numbers back to the system and both should work. OR if i could put an emulator onto my phone or even hard code the MEIE number change on my old phone to the same as my new one...
Remember back in the day when cellphones were still a new thing, the brick and bag phones and so on, well someone figured out how to clone phones and the practice caught on like wildfire and since then has been literally outlawed. AS IN IT IS ILLEGAL TO CLONE ONE OR MORE PHONES TO THE SAME IMEI, MSID, DEC OR HEX SERIAL TO GAIN USE OF MULTIPLE PHONES ON THE SAME LINE AT THE SAME TIME. Not being mean or an ass to you, but I would research this a little bit and tread lightly on the subject. Stuff like this is not tolerated very well on xda.
Plus, now it would be almost impossible to do this with any carrier as the data the phone sends out is not just what you want it to. Whenever it connects to the network is sends and receives configuration data such as manufacturer and model among other things and will throw red flags if it doesnt match up to what the expected result of the data sent and received to the network and carrier has on file.
Again, tread lightly on this path.
"AS IN IT IS ILLEGAL TO CLONE" I'm serious, I'd like to see an actual Canadian law stating this. And if it's not illegal in Canada then it's a legit question. Well it's still legit.
"not tolerated very well on xda." Why? the whole point of these forums is to learn and teach people how to modify their phones. If they didn't want people sharing this information they should never have started this website to begin with.
As to my actual question and as to one stated answer
"They probably didn't fully remove the old phone's IMIE data from the system"
If it's still partially in the system that means it could be wholly in the system and means it should be able to be done. If they say it can't but i'm still getting txts on both phones that means the carriers are lying and are just making excuses to get more money. If thats all it is i'll do my best to get every penny out of them for every penny they're stealing from me.
Ok rant done, how do I clone my IMIE number? (no i won't tread lightly)
slight22 said:
"AS IN IT IS ILLEGAL TO CLONE" I'm serious, I'd like to see an actual Canadian law stating this. And if it's not illegal in Canada then it's a legit question. Well it's still legit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its considered fraud under the law in most counties, like changing the VIN on a car, even if there isnt a specific law to deal with it
and besides that, its against the rules of this forum, so even if it was legal to do its not ok to ask about here
defaultdotxbe said:
its considered fraud under the law in most counties, like changing the VIN on a car, even if there isnt a specific law to deal with it
and besides that, its against the rules of this forum, so even if it was legal to do its not ok to ask about here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your making a mountain out of a mole hill and there is a very real difference between a 6 or 8 hundred dollar phone and 15 thousand dollar plus car; unless you own both then i see no issue switching out the vin, as long as you own the cars.
as to being the against forum policy i challenge that on the simple fact there is nothing wrong with sharing knowledge.
slight22 said:
Your making a mountain out of a mole hill and there is a very real difference between a 6 or 8 hundred dollar phone and 15 thousand dollar plus car; unless you own both then i see no issue switching out the vin, as long as you own the cars.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lawmakers disagree
as to being the against forum policy i challenge that on the simple fact there is nothing wrong with sharing knowledge.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
forum admins disagree
"lawmakers disagree"
I can't trace out anywhere where they say cloning your phones IMIE is illegal in Canada, and i also just got of the phone with HTC and they said they don't know of any laws saying it is.
As to the forum admins, they are allowed to disagree, but i'll be they want to know just as much as I do.
Another thread (closed) on this site which discusses ESN cloning: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=380172
Just search on google, and you will find what you need. There are programs like cdma workshop out there.
Hey guys and gals, there's a petition floating around that everyone needs to sign. If you value the ability to unlock your device, you need to sign this. Let your voice be heard and keep this AOSP. XDA is a strong vast community of devs and noons alike. Don't let them take our rights.
http://www.androidauthority.com/mobile-phone-unlocking-petition-150925/
Thank You all very much:laugh:
I SIGNED
jbats said:
Hey guys and gals, there's a petition floating around that everyone needs to sign. If you value the ability to unlock your device, you need to sign this. Let your voice be heard and keep this AOSP. XDA is a strong vast community of devs and noons alike. Don't let them take our rights.
http://www.androidauthority.com/mobile-phone-unlocking-petition-150925/
Thank You all very much:laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i signed it man hope it helps we need to get this out more on different forums and such anything i can do to help
soldier1184 said:
i signed it man hope it helps we need to get this out more on different forums and such anything i can do to help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Repost to your social networks, start other threads, pass it along. If you don't voice your opinion, you can't moan when they get locked down. Look what Verizon just did with there recent update. Luckily we have Adam Outler in our arsenal of devs.
jbats said:
Hey guys and gals, there's a petition floating around that everyone needs to sign. If you value the ability to unlock your device, you need to sign this. Let your voice be heard and keep this AOSP. XDA is a strong vast community of devs and noons alike. Don't let them take our rights.
http://www.androidauthority.com/mobile-phone-unlocking-petition-150925/
Thank You all very much:laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Signed it a few minutes ago
Sent from my GT-P3110 using xda app-developers app
I just wanted to give my two cents on this issue. I'm not a nay-sayer and am not trying to say you shouldn't take action if you believe action is warranted.
My opinions on this issue are as follows.
1. Has anyone read any of the official 'white house' responses from other petitions? It's like they pay someone (not sure who but I would bet they make minimum wage) to give a 2 or 3 line comment to whatever you submit. So say this petition gets an additional 82,000 signatures... what's the official response going to be? "Thank you for your concern in this matter, however, the administration's official position is that modifying an item that you do not fully own adds a burden and cost to businesses when those modifications result in failure of said item. We will continue to evaluate this issue" or some BS.
2. This law isn't enforceable. You can't physically 'go after' people for their cell phones and prosecute them. There's just no manpower to do so. Next time you get pulled over for speeding is the cop going to see your cell phone in your car and ask to see it? How's he/she going to know it's unlocked without permission (or unlocked at all)?
3. Let this law stand... see where it goes... Imagine the fallout if carriers started sending warning texts to people who have supposedly illegally unlocked their phones! Imagine the lawsuits/bad publicity that would spawn against carriers for monitoring people's cell phones without their consent or knowledge! I guarantee there's nothing in anyone's cell contracts that would allow T-Mobile, AT&T, etc. the right to track and monitor usage of the device throughout the duration of your contract to insure the device isn't being tampered with or unlocked.
4. This is just political figures throwing their campaign contributor 'a bone' and another sad sign of just how bloated government is here. This law is no different than some of the other ridiculous digital copyright crap being spewed out.
5. Once your contract is up you are allowed to do whatever you wish to your phone. You can also get permission to have your device unlocked from your carrier at any time. I know of a few people that travel abroad and for them it was as simple as asking to be able to use another sim when they travel. If you have a good long standing account with your carrier they are very likely to comply (else they risk losing business).
None of this applies to flashing custom roms or the like (which will always void any warranty, etc.), just with carrier unlocking the phone.
anactoraaron said:
None of this applies to flashing custom roms or the like (which will always void any warranty, etc.), just with carrier unlocking the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your right and I totally agree. I just recently got an i777 unlocked by simply calling the carrier(ATnT) and requesting it so I could use it with a prepaid network. The account was in good standing, all previous balance had been paid off.Voila
Trick was driving 45 mins to get a sim, because I told the carrier it was my phone(idiot), but my friend was happy.
I was quite disgusted to see how the mods failed to interpret the law, and how they reacted in this thread.
Someone cited a proposed Senate bill, not an actual law that's on the books, and the mod reacted as if it were law. And worse, the proposed legislation actually exempted XDA participants anyway:
(d) Exception- Subsection (b) shall not apply to the manufacturer of a
mobile device or a person who repairs or refurbishes a mobile
device unless the manufacturer or person knows that the mobile
device or part involved is stolen.'.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the thread that emerges in search results. What an embarrassment to xda. Is xda not interested in creating a forum for those who repair mobile devices?? Some of whom actually seek to alter their IMEI back to its original number after bricking wiped it out are being denied support. How foolish is that?
I propose the lock be removed from that thread, and zelendel apologize for the error.
Great to see someone hitting the books and citing real published sources rather then spreading paranoia based on hearsay. Always seek a published source to back up anything you spread or specify that it is not confirmed true and is speculative.
I did ++ your post bro, I ranted about MEID repair stuff in cricket users I should probably rant about it here too, I'm sick and tired of everyone assuming that one who is attempting to repair an MEID is a thief/fence. Likewise there are legal ways to discuss that topic (this is speculative because I'm too lazy to pull up legislation right now, I have a headache and I was nodding out in the middle of reading up on AT commands) like I'm pretty sure (but I don't have the law to cite so someone else should do find it) that zeroing out and changing and MEID to the one that was originally registered to the device (the one under the battery) is legal to do and doesn't violate any FCC or other federal regulations. I'm pretty sure I have read that and did cite it in my rant on the subject at cricket-users. But some people just decide to demonize an activity and do witchunts. I will say right out that I regularly repair MEID numbers and any phone I beleive to be stolen that I ever run across I go through the phone book and find the ICE or obvious family contacts and arrange to return the stolen property, even if is a handset I purchased and then found to be stolen I will willingly loose that money to get someone their **** back. I've had many phones stolen from me and it's messed up and I wouldn't do that to someone else.
When phones are stolen their MEID normally only remains on the blacklist for the duration of the phone being on that account, once the person replaces the phone and activates it, this releases the stolen phone's MEID from the database and allows it to be activated again (this practice is verified to be Sprint policy by a high-tier CSR I spoke with during a support call, I had a phone stolen from me by the police, not making this up, and I was trying to permanently prevent it from being activatable. It is not easy.)
So if you have a problem with MEID repairing be real about it, don't act like anyone who mentions it is a thief and start lodging accusations. It is against this site's current policy and any such comments discussing how to do these things should be taken down, but stop flaming people that post about it, thiefs don't even need to go through all that trouble they just have to wait for the phone they stole to be replaced on the account. The only way a phone gets meid blacklisted on a long term or permanent basis (besides submitting an override form to sprint that basically says yeah my stuff was jacked and I want to make sure no one can ever activate this phone again) is from broken service contracts. The phones that were subsidized by agreeing to a annual service contract will be blacklisted by that carrier until the account is repaid.
That is the truth about the MEID repair bullies, they are really just supporting the carriers' ability to shake down bad customers for money, they really don't give a **** if a device is stolen, that just means they get to sell another device at full unsubsidized price.
It's interesting how a proposed bill gets interpretted as law. Anyone can write a bill. Some average joe can write a bill, and submit it to Congress for signing. Then they can post the bill publicly, reference it in an XDA thread, and get mods to close a thread.
I did an "alert" on the mods post in that other thread. It will be interesting to see if XDA can correct the error. Hopefully the alert doesn't go to the mod who acted irrationally.
Here are the results of the attempt to get the thread closure overturned:
"the mod is a senior mod so his decision cannot be overturned. but google this question that will provide more updated info status on this"
How can a senior mod be so reckless?
And since when is "google" a higher source than the Cornell law publications? Google is what created the mess in the first place. Someone googled, read a proposed law that was long past dead, and interpreted it as law.
So I've got a discussion thats bugged me for ages. I've always wondered about bad IMEI's/ESN's. Phones that cannot be used because they are reported stolen
It has a great purpose, It's like if someone stole your car, the car nolonger can start(bad analogy, don't laugh). But it leaves me with something that really really bugs me
Now what happens to people who legitimately buy devices second hand from original owners and such and then the original owner decides to be a you know what and blacklist the device? Or worse, what happens then to all of these devices in their after life? We now have a pile of useless phones that there seems to be no procedure to ever unblacklist these devices... thats the part that sickens me. We literally are rendering useless perfectly good phones that have the ability to be reused, be it the device is sent to the manufacturer first for refurbishing, the original owner gets the device back into their possession. I just feel there so many phones out there that are rendered useless when they are really expensive pieces of equipment... I Know there's always "changing the IMEI" but we aren't going the illegal route here.
Anyone else have feedback, Idk why it just gives me this feeling of being very wasteful.
XDA simply doesn't want to dabble in any "grey" areas. There may be legitimate/legal reasons for changing an IMEI. Most (or at least many) cases, the reasons aren't legitimate or legal. So, to avoid any confusion (or liability), discussion is prohibited. Similarly, certain "patcher" apps. Lots of legitimate uses, like back-ups/restores, root app removal, etc. But also lots of illegitimate uses. So XDA takes the blanket stance of not discussing such apps. It saves them from any hassle of legal/ethical issues, and alleviates the moderating staff from sorting out the fraction of legitimate questions from the dubious questions, lies, damned lies, and flat-out admissions of nefariousness.
If you buy a phone without doing your research into its IMEI or its unlock status, then I think it's your own damn fault for getting burned. Just my opinion. If you're asking about changing IMEI, then either you screwed up in that regard, or you've knowingly purchased a phone with a bad IMEI (buying a "parts" phone off eBay or craigslist), or are the cause of it having a bad IMEI itself (failing to fulfill a contract agreement). Regardless of the reason, even if it's innocently/ignorantly getting burned by an unscrupulous seller, such discussion is barred from XDA because of those other concerns.
My exact question is at the end more than anything, I see this being wasteful of phones? If a device is blacklisted for being "stolen" but is later found by the original owner? Then what? Still a dead device? I just think there's hundreds of good phones out there that could still be used even if they are found or returned or by who knows what means end up on the service providers desk cause someone found it and sent it to the police or something and it's reunited with it's owner...
You get where I'm going with this?
I SPECIFICALLY STATED CHANING IMEI's, HOW-TO's, and such are NOT to be discussed here. I even said this was a discussion, not a Help me thread... Sorry I feel just like you didn't read my op :/
to make it more basic, I think the current system is super inefficent and wasteful and there must be better solutions out there or some future legal way to deal with unblacklisting phones(i.e. original owner finds phone, goes to carrier, proves their identity with an ID and clearly the carrier can look up the account and devices)
Good afternoon mods, I'm sorry but I had to open a thread about this topic again.
It's absolutely not illegal to change your IMEI in most of the world. For instance, it's completely legal in the entirety of the US (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mobile_Equipment_Identity#IMEI_and_the_law).
As far as I know, the only known law in the whole of Europe (referring to the continent) that makes it illegal is in the UK and it's only illegal if you don't have the manufacturer permission. If you do, it's legal (see See 3.b https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/31/section/1). And it's perfectly possible to obtain such permissions from some manufacturers.
There is one specific German law making it illegal if and only if IMEI change is done in the context of tampering with evidence after a crime. And not before if it's not tampering with evidence.
While I do understand IMEI change could be illegal (citation needed?) in some rather few authoritarian regimes like China or even India. It's absolutely not illegal (yet) in most of the democratic world including the US, the UK (if you have permission from the manufacturer) and the EU. But it would be a bit ironic to ban this based on the laws of such regimes as they probably wouldn't allow rooting/jailbreaking either.
I also do understand IMEI change is probably against the ToS of many mobile operators but there is a very large gap between violating ToS and violating the law.
In brief, there are certainly in my opinion not enough of those place (yet) to justify a blanket censorship of this topic when it's also clearly an important privacy issue and that Apps/Operators/Manufacturers and indeed authoritarian law enforcement are using the IMEI to track users and also to track dissidents/protesters (see BLM, see Kashmir, see Hong Kong, see Lebanon, see Belarus, ...)
I would like to kindly request mods to provide a citation of this being illegal before applying such a blanket ban.
This is not a troll at all. There have been numerous threads about this topic on XDA and this is a recurring issue of mods seemingly thinking this is illegal when it's not. The whole perceived illegality of IMEI change is in almost all cases hearsay without any legal base.
Thank you kindly for your consideration and hopefully you won't ban me for this.
(Just to be clear, this topic is not about asking a way to change IMEI but asking the mods to provide citations about the illegality of IMEI change when censoring such threads)
I can't think of a legitimate reason why someone would need to change their IMEI number unless they are doing something shady.
Regardless of if the process itself is legal or not, the reasons why you would need to do it are most likely not legal. I'm sure that's why it falls under the "Don't get us into trouble." rule on here.
byAidan said:
I can't think of a legitimate reason why someone would need to change their IMEI number unless they are doing something shady.
Regardless of if the process itself is legal or not, the reasons why you would need to do it are most likely not legal. I'm sure that's why it falls under the "Don't get us into trouble." rule on here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for your answer.
The same reasoning could be used for MAC address randomization or for any other privacy feature such as XPrivacy or Magisk Hide ... Yet those are fine. All the banks and some apps (Netflix) will also argue you have no reason to root/jailbreak and subsequently hide the root/jailbreak if you're not doing shady things.
The same reasoning could be used for VPN/Tor users or those who use private DNS over TLS/HTTPS. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear?
A good legitimate reason is for instance that all Banking Apps (and many others) require "Phone permission" which allows them to read the IMEI. This allows them to track you with an unchangeable UID. A much better UID than any other tracking ID generated by the OS.
Another good legitimate reason besides avoiding commercial tracking is to make illegal dragnet surveillance a bit less effective.
And last but not least, it can help people stay alive under highly oppressive regimes ...
But I'm not arguing to ethically accept something illegal. I'm arguing to not ethically reject something perfectly legal using a wrong reasoning such as its supposed illegality.
I don't see any legitimate reason for Apps/Operators/Manufacturers to be able to track users using unchangeable UIDs such as the IMEI. And again ... it's absolutely not illegal so why make it illegal or shady?
Sure it can be used for shady things ... But this is valid for anything. IMHO Shady people won't use this anyway, they'll just use burner phones. Why bother wasting time with IMEI change ...
In the end, fair enough ... XDA is of course not a public space in itself and they're free to moderate the way they want. I'm just arguing that mods shouldn't use the "It's illegal" reasoning when removing those topics.
Instead they should just say "We think it's too shady and we don't like it ... even if it's legal" ... But stating it's illegal is just factually incorrect in most of the world.
byAidan said:
I can't think of a legitimate reason why someone would need to change their IMEI number unless they are doing something shady.
Regardless of if the process itself is legal or not, the reasons why you would need to do it are most likely not legal. I'm sure that's why it falls under the "Don't get us into trouble." rule on here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a rebuttal if may.
The act of changing an IMEI in itself is not legal. I'm also quite sure there are valid and legal reasons to do so. If the reasons were illegal then the act would be, too.
Also. It is not reasonable to throw out a blanket and say that everyone that would want to do this is up to something shady. Most people are decent, to label everyone as having nefarious intentions is counter-productive.
Just my humble opinion.....
Sent from my IN2025 using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------
One more comment. Legal or not is not the issue here. The forum has rules in order to post here. One of them is related legal/illegal activity. Since this is a public forum accessable around the world there could be users from a country where this topic is not legal. For that reason XDA is well within their right to ban this particular subject matter and a few others, too.
Sent from my IN2025 using Tapatalk
hurlube said:
Good afternoon mods, I'm sorry but I had to open a thread about this topic again.
...
Thank you kindly for your consideration and hopefully you won't ban me for this.
(Just to be clear, this topic is not about asking a way to change IMEI but asking the mods to provide citations about the illegality of IMEI change when censoring such threads)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@hurlube First, please allow me to apologise that it really took a long time until I recognised this thread - and only by accident. XDA has not only 10+M members, it also hosts 3.5M+ threads with 78+M posts. If you count the number of moderators e.g. here and further consider that all moderators are volunteers and do this "job" for free besides their real life, real family and friends, real business and profession, I hope you can understand that there's no possibility at all to actively every thread and post if moderators' support, assistance or guidance is requested somewhere. We clearly depend on the single and all XDA members is this matter.
It's very unlikely that a moderator becomes aware of e.g. your thread unless a member reports the thread or a post via the report function or you mention or quote a moderator (like I did with you @hurlube). Another possibility is certainly a PM to a moderator but due to the reasons mentioned above it might be that a PM rests in a moderator's inbox unacted for days or weeks.
Now to the subject of this thread itself... Neither I nor my team mates say that the change or the edit of an IMEI is illegal everywhere. If you look at e.g. my post here, I stated with reference to rule no. 9 of the XDA Forum Rules:
Change/edit of IMEI is a legal offence in quite a few of countries; hence discussions or support in this respect is not allowed on XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't say that change or edit of IMEI is illegal everywhere. There're quite a lot of things that are legal and even encouraged in some countries while being illegal in other countries like freedom of speech and opinion, the right to demonstrate, suicide and active, passive or indirect euthanasia. I think I could most likely extend this list endlessly. Some countries protect authorship, copyright and ownership while in other countries even official agencies support their violation or plagiarism.
I think it's obviously difficult for a private website in the world wide web to follow a right and consistent way. XDA was founded back in 2003 by developers for developers (see xda-developers: The History -Part One-), and I believe this is still the trait of XDA. Allow me to quote the XDA Forum Rules:
XDA-Developers is based on the principle of sharing to transmit knowledge. This is the cornerstone of our site. Our members and developers freely share their experience, knowledge, and finished works with the rest of the community to promote growth within the developer community, and to encourage those still learning to become better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We try to support developers and defend their ownership, while simultaneously enforcing GPL and the requirement to give credits when due, and we don't accept warez at all.
On the other hand, we don't want to lose sight of all other XDA members and users for whom we want to provide a platform to ask for help and support, to share opinions and experiences in a friendly, civil and respectful environment.
In order to implement above principles, this private website or platform has brought its own and already quoted forum rules into effect. And regarding the change or the edit of IMEI the XDA stance is like stated in my above linked post: We do not allow any kind of IMEI editing! However, if it's about restoring original IMEI/EFS that's not considered editing/changing hence allowed. And we also allow discussion and support regarding IMEI spoofing or masking as long as it happens on software level and the actual hard-coded board IMEI isn't tampered with. Thus it's allowed to post apps or (Exposed Framework) add-ons with this function that many use due to privacy concerns. But again, for sure we don't accept talks about using it for illegal purpose.
I hope I was able to clarify XDA's stance in this matter. And also allow me a very personal but very important remark to me: I do not censor any thread, and I've never observed that any of my moderator fellows does. But we clean a thread or post from anything that does not comply with the forum rules and always explain to the member whose post was affected the reason why we did that; this occurs most of the time privately by PM's but occasionally also publicly by an announcement in the thread. I really hope that you don't call this censorship!
Last but not least - and I apologise that I've to enforce our rules now as I became aware of your thread: The thread is obviously not related to the Oneplus 8 Pro i.e. I'm moving the thread to the General discussions section.
Stay safe and stay healthy!
Regards
Oswald Boelcke
Thank you very much for your answer Oswald.
hurlube said:
Good afternoon mods, I'm sorry but I had to open a thread about this topic again.
It's absolutely not illegal to change your IMEI in most of the world. For instance, it's completely legal in the entirety of the US (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mobile_Equipment_Identity#IMEI_and_the_law).
As far as I know, the only known law in the whole of Europe (referring to the continent) that makes it illegal is in the UK and it's only illegal if you don't have the manufacturer permission. If you do, it's legal (see See 3.b https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/31/section/1). And it's perfectly possible to obtain such permissions from some manufacturers.
There is one specific German law making it illegal if and only if IMEI change is done in the context of tampering with evidence after a crime. And not before if it's not tampering with evidence.
While I do understand IMEI change could be illegal (citation needed?) in some rather few authoritarian regimes like China or even India. It's absolutely not illegal (yet) in most of the democratic world including the US, the UK (if you have permission from the manufacturer) and the EU. But it would be a bit ironic to ban this based on the laws of such regimes as they probably wouldn't allow rooting/jailbreaking either.
I also do understand IMEI change is probably against the ToS of many mobile operators but there is a very large gap between violating ToS and violating the law.
In brief, there are certainly in my opinion not enough of those place (yet) to justify a blanket censorship of this topic when it's also clearly an important privacy issue and that Apps/Operators/Manufacturers and indeed authoritarian law enforcement are using the IMEI to track users and also to track dissidents/protesters (see BLM, see Kashmir, see Hong Kong, see Lebanon, see Belarus, ...)
I would like to kindly request mods to provide a citation of this being illegal before applying such a blanket ban.
This is not a troll at all. There have been numerous threads about this topic on XDA and this is a recurring issue of mods seemingly thinking this is illegal when it's not. The whole perceived illegality of IMEI change is in almost all cases hearsay without any legal base.
Thank you kindly for your consideration and hopefully you won't ban me for this.
(Just to be clear, this topic is not about asking a way to change IMEI but asking the mods to provide citations about the illegality of IMEI change when censoring such threads)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very odd. I'm an attorney who practices criminal law in Kentucky and Tennessee, specializing in appellate and posts conviction writs. I have two clients who are serving substantial prison sentences for allegedly spoofing the IMEI/MEID device identifiers on dozens of mobile devices for the purpose of bypassing blacklisting restrictions imposed as a result of the devices having been reported stolen, as well as some allegations of subscriber fraud. To give you an idea of just how substantial the sentences are, both defendants were middle-aged at the time of sentencing, and it is very likely.that neither of them will ever make it to get out of prison.
I'm sure my clients would love to know the precedent you are relying upon in your position that this practice is fully legal in the US. Such a precedent would surely invalidate their convictions and exonerate them both. Let me guess, your legal expertise and position are based on some jargon you read on Google. Everybody is a lawyer who has internet access these days.
Federal law and statutes enacted in all 50 states explicitly prohibit concealing the identity of a mobile phone by way of altering, modifying, spoofing or otherwise changing the device's unique identifiers. While some state statutes require an element of intent for conviction, most prohibit the practice regardless of mens rea (criminal culpability). In fact, the practice is considered so serious, the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Secret Service investigate and initiate prosecution of such offenses on the federal level. The involvement of these two agencies is a surefire indication that this very subject rises to the level of national security. You couldn't possibly be any more incorrect on this subject. Spreading such blatantly false information on a platform such as XDA is poison. I'm sure this BS has been read by a multitude of members and visitors.
You made reference to wanting citation of a specific law or authority prohibiting the practice of changing the unique identifiers of a mobile phone. I would direct you to the federal statute
18 U.S. Code § 1029Read the statute, its annotations, revisions, amendments and progeny very carefully. This is the statute the US Attorney's office will use to crucify you in the event you are caught.
For clarification, there is nothing illegal in rewriting an IMEI/MEID number that has been invalidated, wiped, corrupted or otherwise damaged on a mobile phone. This occurs quite often during procedures such as flashing firmware to a device without first making a backup of the /efs or /nvdata partitions. SP Flash Tool is notorious for wiping device identifiers, MAC addresses and other values unique to the device. It is often necessary to rewrite or fix these components in order to regain network, Bluetooth and WiFi functionality. I am referring specifically to changing device identifiers in a manner that would mask or conceal the device's true identity.
Viva La Android said:
Very odd. I'm an attorney who practices criminal law in Kentucky and Tennessee, specializing in appellate and posts conviction writs. I have two clients who are serving substantial prison sentences for allegedly spoofing the IMEI/MEID device identifiers on dozens of mobile devices for the purpose of bypassing blacklisting restrictions imposed as a result of the devices having been reported stolen, as well as some allegations of subscriber fraud. To give you an idea of just how substantial the sentences are, both defendants were middle-aged at the time of sentencing, and it is very likely.that neither of them will ever make it to get out of prison.
I'm sure my clients would love to know the precedent you are relying upon in your position that this practice is fully legal in the US. Such a precedent would surely invalidate their convictions and exonerate them both. Let me guess, your legal expertise and position are based on some jargon you read on Google. Everybody is a lawyer who has internet access these days.
Federal law and statutes enacted in all 50 states explicitly prohibit concealing the identity of a mobile phone by way of altering, modifying, spoofing or otherwise changing the device's unique identifiers. While some state statutes require an element of intent for conviction, most prohibit the practice regardless of mens rea (criminal culpability). In fact, the practice is considered so serious, the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Secret Service investigate and initiate prosecution of such offenses on the federal level. The involvement of these two agencies is a surefire indication that this very subject rises to the level of national security. You couldn't possibly be any more incorrect on this subject. Spreading such blatantly false information on a platform such as XDA is poison. I'm sure this BS has been read by a multitude of members and visitors.
You made reference to wanting citation of a specific law or authority prohibiting the practice of changing the unique identifiers of a mobile phone. I would direct you to the federal statute
18 U.S. Code § 1029Read the statute, its annotations, revisions, amendments and progeny very carefully. This is the statute the US Attorney's office will use to crucify you in the event you are caught.
For clarification, there is nothing illegal in rewriting an IMEI/MEID number that has been invalidated, wiped, corrupted or otherwise damaged on a mobile phone. This occurs quite often during procedures such as flashing firmware to a device without first making a backup of the /efs or /nvdata partitions. SP Flash Tool is notorious for wiping device identifiers, MAC addresses and other values unique to the device. It is often necessary to rewrite or fix these components in order to regain network, Bluetooth and WiFi functionality. I am referring specifically to changing device identifiers in a manner that would mask or conceal the device's true identity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow.....
so i'm not sure which is the case and which is worse, that you're a supposed attorney and miss-read the previous statements or that your a supposed attorney and don't understand the inherent difference of intent in 1029 versus what is being talked about here.
i don't mean offense by this, just very, VERY surprised at your whole statement here.
fair bit to unpack here to bear with it for a bit;
just about every causal line in 1029 is prefaced by "knowingly and with intent to defraud..."
obviously your clients intended to use stolen mobile devices and use them for some purpose, either that's cloning another IMEI or simply changing the IMEI to activate them on a new service line.
both ARE illegal acts since the originating device was a stolen device, this in turn then brings into effect 1029 (and also 18 U.S.C. § 2315). since they likely knew it was stolen and even if they used the excuse that they didn't know, after finding out it was blacklisted they went through the further trouble of changing the IMEIs instead of doing the right thing and reporting the devices and the seller which then further calls into question the legality of the means they came into possession of the devices as well as pointing more toward their intent to defraud the cellular carrier.
both those factors i'm sure played a HEAVY role in their convictions.
in a scenario where a legal owner of a device, that they purchased themselves wants to change the IMEI, they can (in the usa), one instance of a LEGAL reason to do so is to prevent undisclosed throttling by the cellular carrier and this is done quite regularly by carriers to varying degrees and regions.
for instance, they will sell you 50gb of hotspot usage but then drastically throttle your connection speeds of the devices behind that hotspot, all the while never disclosing that fact to the customer, often even after being confronted on the subject they will even state that they only throttle in times of high congestion (an easily disproved excuse, if the speed is significantly slower on a tethered device while the cellular device itself has massively better speeds at all times then it's not congestion)
the customer has paid for hotspot usage, not hotspot usage at a reduced speed. (though some are disclosed, if only in the contract text itself, the customer would need to check this first)
changing the IMEI of a hotspot to that of say, a tablet that the person also owns for instance, would bypass that throttling and allow the customer to get the speeds that they have in fact paid for.
this is in fact what this type of modification is most commonly used for.
in this scenario there is no defrauding taking place, the customer is paying for a service that they are using on hardware that they have legally purchased and are taking actions simply to get what they have paid for and what the carrier agreed to provide them per the subscriber contract, neither 18 U.S.C. §1029 or 18 U.S.C. §2315 would come into effect or question, thus the action is perfectly legal.
since as i'm sure you're aware, in the USA, unless there is a law that SPECIFICALLY states an action is illegal, then said action is LEGAL.
the law is restrictive not permissive; people don't need permission to go outside and take a walk down the road, it is not forbidden by law therefore it is legal.
as others have said, most criminals will just buy burner $50 phones from walmart rather than go through all this trouble to change the imei.
In
Mechcondrid said:
wow.....
so i'm not sure which is the case and which is worse, that you're a supposed attorney and miss-read the previous statements or that your a supposed attorney and don't understand the inherent difference of intent in 1029 versus what is being talked about here.
i don't mean offense by this, just very, VERY surprised at your whole statement here.
fair bit to unpack here to bear with it for a bit;
just about every causal line in 1029 is prefaced by "knowingly and with intent to defraud..."
obviously your clients intended to use stolen mobile devices and use them for some purpose, either that's cloning another IMEI or simply changing the IMEI to activate them on a new service line.
both ARE illegal acts since the originating device was a stolen device, this in turn then brings into effect 1029 (and also 18 U.S.C. § 2315). since they likely knew it was stolen and even if they used the excuse that they didn't know, after finding out it was blacklisted they went through the further trouble of changing the IMEIs instead of doing the right thing and reporting the devices and the seller which then further calls into question the legality of the means they came into possession of the devices as well as pointing more toward their intent to defraud the cellular carrier.
both those factors i'm sure played a HEAVY role in their convictions.
in a scenario where a legal owner of a device, that they purchased themselves wants to change the IMEI, they can (in the usa), one instance of a LEGAL reason to do so is to prevent undisclosed throttling by the cellular carrier and this is done quite regularly by carriers to varying degrees and regions.
for instance, they will sell you 50gb of hotspot usage but then drastically throttle your connection speeds of the devices behind that hotspot, all the while never disclosing that fact to the customer, often even after being confronted on the subject they will even state that they only throttle in times of high congestion (an easily disproved excuse, if the speed is significantly slower on a tethered device while the cellular device itself has massively better speeds at all times then it's not congestion)
the customer has paid for hotspot usage, not hotspot usage at a reduced speed. (though some are disclosed, if only in the contract text itself, the customer would need to check this first)
changing the IMEI of a hotspot to that of say, a tablet that the person also owns for instance, would bypass that throttling and allow the customer to get the speeds that they have in fact paid for.
this is in fact what this type of modification is most commonly used for.
in this scenario there is no defrauding taking place, the customer is paying for a service that they are using on hardware that they have legally purchased and are taking actions simply to get what they have paid for and what the carrier agreed to provide them per the subscriber contract, neither 18 U.S.C. §1029 or 18 U.S.C. §2315 would come into effect or question, thus the action is perfectly legal.
since as i'm sure you're aware, in the USA, unless there is a law that SPECIFICALLY states an action is illegal, then said action is LEGAL.
the law is restrictive not permissive; people don't need permission to go outside and take a walk down the road, it is not forbidden by law therefore it is legal.
as others have said, most criminals will just buy burner $50 phones from walmart rather than go through all this trouble to change the imei
Mechcondrid said:
wow.....
so i'm not sure which is the case and which is worse, that you're a supposed attorney and miss-read the previous statements or that your a supposed attorney and don't understand the inherent difference of intent in 1029 versus what is being talked about here.
i don't mean offense by this, just very, VERY surprised at your whole statement here.
fair bit to unpack here to bear with it for a bit;
just about every causal line in 1029 is prefaced by "knowingly and with intent to defraud..."
obviously your clients intended to use stolen mobile devices and use them for some purpose, either that's cloning another IMEI or simply changing the IMEI to activate them on a new service line.
both ARE illegal acts since the originating device was a stolen device, this in turn then brings into effect 1029 (and also 18 U.S.C. § 2315). since they likely knew it was stolen and even if they used the excuse that they didn't know, after finding out it was blacklisted they went through the further trouble of changing the IMEIs instead of doing the right thing and reporting the devices and the seller which then further calls into question the legality of the means they came into possession of the devices as well as pointing more toward their intent to defraud the cellular carrier.
both those factors i'm sure played a HEAVY role in their convictions.
in a scenario where a legal owner of a device, that they purchased themselves wants to change the IMEI, they can (in the usa), one instance of a LEGAL reason to do so is to prevent undisclosed throttling by the cellular carrier and this is done quite regularly by carriers to varying degrees and regions.
for instance, they will sell you 50gb of hotspot usage but then drastically throttle your connection speeds of the devices behind that hotspot, all the while never disclosing that fact to the customer, often even after being confronted on the subject they will even state that they only throttle in times of high congestion (an easily disproved excuse, if the speed is significantly slower on a tethered device while the cellular device itself has massively better speeds at all times then it's not congestion)
the customer has paid for hotspot usage, not hotspot usage at a reduced speed. (though some are disclosed, if only in the contract text itself, the customer would need to check this first)
changing the IMEI of a hotspot to that of say, a tablet that the person also owns for instance, would bypass that throttling and allow the customer to get the speeds that they have in fact paid for.
this is in fact what this type of modification is most commonly used for.
in this scenario there is no defrauding taking place, the customer is paying for a service that they are using on hardware that they have legally purchased and are taking actions simply to get what they have paid for and what the carrier agreed to provide them per the subscriber contract, neither 18 U.S.C. §1029 or 18 U.S.C. §2315 would come into effect or question, thus the action is perfectly legal.
since as i'm sure you're aware, in the USA, unless there is a law that SPECIFICALLY states an action is illegal, then said action is LEGAL.
the law is restrictive not permissive; people don't need permission to go outside and take a walk down the road, it is not forbidden by law therefore it is legal.
as others have said, most criminals will just buy burner $50 phones from walmart rather than go through all this trouble to change the imei.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed you can change your IMEI if you are a device owner. If you get caught, however, you will be prosecuted. I see you read the language of the statute but failed to read the annotations, commentary, amendments and progeny. Perhaps do your full research on the applicable law and then try to debate the substantive language. My interpretation of the statute is not at fault. I have been litigating this statute for a number of years and know full well what it prohibits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@Mechcondrid, there's a bit more involved in litigation than citing statutory elements. Did you happen to research the federal legal definition of "access device?"
You and I are on the same page in terms of the required mens rea (criminal culpability, i.e. intent) in the context of securing a conviction for access device fraud. The prohibition you're not seeing is the mere act of altering or modifying a device's unique identifiers. This act creates a prima facie case of possessing an unauthorized/counterfeit access device, without demonstrating the mens rea of intent to commit a crime. I'll be glad to hash this out in more detail when I get a few minutes free. So, the question arises, would a person be automatically prosecuted for changing the IMEI/MEID of a mobile device? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? My point is, that technically speaking, the individual has committed a federal crime within the scope of a prima facie context, by altering the identity of the device, in and of itself. The US Supreme Court expounded upon the contextual meaning of prima facie in the case of Virginia v Black. 538 U.S. 343 (2003). For all intents and purposes of this subject matter, prima facie means evidence which on its first appearance is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question, i.e., altering the unique identifiers of a mobile device -- such as a cell phone. But again, when I get a few minutes free I'll hash out the precise points and authorities in the matter sub judice.
Viva La Android said:
@Mechcondrid, there's a bit more involved in litigation than citing statutory elements. This is your free lesson: did you happen to research the federal legal definition of "access device?"
You and I are on the same page in terms of the required mens rea (criminal culpability, i.e. intent) in the context of securing a conviction for access device fraud. The prohibition you're not seeing is the mere act of altering or modifying a device's unique identifiers. This act creates a prima facie case of possessing an unauthorized/counterfeit access device, without demonstrating the mens rea of intent to commit a crime. I'll be glad to hash this out in more detail when I get a few minutes free. So, the question arises, would a person be automatically prosecuted for changing the IMEI/MEID of a mobile device? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? My point is, that technically speaking, the individual has committed a federal crime within the scope of a prima facie context, by altering the identity of the device, in and of itself. The US Supreme Court expounded upon the contextual meaning of prima facie in the case of Virginia v Black. 538 U.S. 343 (2003). For all intents and purposes of this subject matter, prima facie means evidence which on its first appearance is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question, i.e., altering the unique identifiers of a mobile device -- such as a cell phone. But again, when I get a few minutes free I'll hash out the precise points and authorities in the matter sub judice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
actually, yes i am familiar with the federal definition of it; I actually design, build and implement custom IoT CnC (command and control) systems, of which one connection option offered is embedded cellular modules (other options include point to point microwave links as well as satcom links like the U-Blox system).
I do this as part of my job for a DoD contractor, so reading up on the compliance requirements of it is basically required to design and sell these systems unless i'd like the company to run afoul of a number of DFARs regulations/clauses and various federal contracting laws/regulations.
i have to even go as far as what specific brands and SoCs i use in a design depending on the customer, contractual context and if it's DoD related or not.
i research and read far more about the legality of things than you would ever expect a system architect to do.
you are coming into the scenario under the presumption that the IMEI is only ever altered (or at least the majority of the time) for illegal or duplicitous means, while that is a possibility, equally a possibility (or even more likely since there is considerable effort and technical skill involved and criminals generally would want easier methods) is a legitimate reason to do so.
the assumption of prima facie evidence runs under the understanding that the particular action is distinctly common to allude to or point to the very likely commission of a crime and only in the absence of competing evidence.
even then it generally requires the prosecution to provide point by point evidence pointing to the confirmation or the support of the prima facie assumption.
someone gets caught with 5 lbs of marijuana (pre-decriminalization/legalization, but this is an apt example that happened quite a bit) and says it's for "personal use"; it's FAR more likely that amount was purchased with the intent to resell (prima facie) than it is that one person is going to go through 5 whole lbs of weed in any realistic amount of time.
i believe there is also the same kind of law concerning liquor reselling without a liquor license somewhere but the core concept remains the same.
a legal non-blacklisted device, active paid carrier account registered to the person in question, and the IMEI being from a device that is also legally owned by the same user and no other active device used on the network with that IMEI would all be competing points of evidence that are easily verifiable by both third parties and the carrier's own records in conjunction with various forms of proof from the person in question themselves.
in one non-DoD customer scenario (that i've actually had to deal with) a cat 18 lte module we had deployed and provisioned would continuously get throttled and deprioritized as a type of hotspot device when it was in fact a single node communications module due to some issue on the carriers backend management in the regional tower software (passadena, ca area to be specific), the module does not move and is simply in a location where running conventional wired or directed microwave networking infrastructure is both financially and physically infeasible; despite working with the carrier's enterprise support, every time we would get the modem back online to realistically usable speeds, about 72-84 hours later the module would again get deprioritized and return to sub megabit speeds on the upstream; this was a implementation that needed near-realtime data relay (less than 1 minute between data collection and upload/reception) which those kind of abysmal upload speeds completely blew out of the water.
after spending a cumulative 80 man hours attempting to work and troubleshoot with the carrier via normal support channels we decided to alter the imei using a cellular capable samsung tablet we purchased specifically to scavenge the IMEI.
The actual tablet itself is not and was never activated on any network and to this day sits on the server room shelf gathering dust and was never even turned on and had it's first boot setup performed.
i'd honestly be very surprised if the tablet is even still functional considering it's sat there for years in a discharged state.
this was a legal purchase, is not a duplicated hardware node on any carrier network and is being used to access a legally and properly registered service that is being paid for by the registered account owner.
so: no fraud, no cloned device on any network and everything registered as it should be regarding the account owners, simply what amounts to a system repair using IMEI modification.
to date (going on roughly 3 years now) this fix has been rock solid and the only service interruption has been when the local power supply failed after the NEMA enclosure gasket had gotten damaged from a local tech's improper closure of the lid.
there is no specific law (in the USA) forbidding the alteration of an IMEI in and of itself without consideration to the intent or specific actions/activity being performed with the completion of that modification.
a prima facie case would likely be valid if we are talking about an actual cell phone as opposed to a hotspot or other data only terminal since there is little to no legitimate benefit to altering phone IMEIs (smart phone IMEIs are already one of the highest priority devices on carrier networks behind enterprise and first responder/mission critical nodes) outside of some very specific and niche scenarios;
but again, there COULD be legitimate reasons to do so and much of those are relatively easy to prove or disprove with information external to the person that is in question.
Mechcondrid said:
actually, yes i am familiar with the federal definition of it; I actually design, build and implement custom IoT CnC (command and control) systems, of which one connection option offered is embedded cellular modules (other options include point to point microwave links as well as satcom links like the U-Blox system).
I do this as part of my job for a DoD contractor, so reading up on the compliance requirements of it is basically required to design and sell these systems unless i'd like the company to run afoul of a number of DFARs regulations/clauses and various federal contracting laws/regulations.
i have to even go as far as what specific brands and SoCs i use in a design depending on the customer, contractual context and if it's DoD related or not.
i research and read far more about the legality of things than you would ever expect a system architect to do.
you are coming into the scenario under the presumption that the IMEI is only ever altered (or at least the majority of the time) for illegal or duplicitous means, while that is a possibility, equally a possibility (or even more likely since there is considerable effort and technical skill involved and criminals generally would want easier methods) is a legitimate reason to do so.
the assumption of prima facie evidence runs under the understanding that the particular action is distinctly common to allude to or point to the very likely commission of a crime and only in the absence of competing evidence.
even then it generally requires the prosecution to provide point by point evidence pointing to the confirmation or the support of the prima facie assumption.
someone gets caught with 5 lbs of marijuana (pre-decriminalization/legalization, but this is an apt example that happened quite a bit) and says it's for "personal use"; it's FAR more likely that amount was purchased with the intent to resell (prima facie) than it is that one person is going to go through 5 whole lbs of weed in any realistic amount of time.
i believe there is also the same kind of law concerning liquor reselling without a liquor license somewhere but the core concept remains the same.
a legal non-blacklisted device, active paid carrier account registered to the person in question, and the IMEI being from a device that is also legally owned by the same user and no other active device used on the network with that IMEI would all be competing points of evidence that are easily verifiable by both third parties and the carrier's own records in conjunction with various forms of proof from the person in question themselves.
in one non-DoD customer scenario (that i've actually had to deal with) a cat 18 lte module we had deployed and provisioned would continuously get throttled and deprioritized as a type of hotspot device when it was in fact a single node communications module due to some issue on the carriers backend management in the regional tower software (passadena, ca area to be specific), the module does not move and is simply in a location where running conventional wired or directed microwave networking infrastructure is both financially and physically infeasible; despite working with the carrier's enterprise support, every time we would get the modem back online to realistically usable speeds, about 72-84 hours later the module would again get deprioritized and return to sub megabit speeds on the upstream; this was a implementation that needed near-realtime data relay (less than 1 minute between data collection and upload/reception) which those kind of abysmal upload speeds completely blew out of the water.
after spending a cumulative 80 man hours attempting to work and troubleshoot with the carrier via normal support channels we decided to alter the imei using a cellular capable samsung tablet we purchased specifically to scavenge the IMEI.
The actual tablet itself is not and was never activated on any network and to this day sits on the server room shelf gathering dust and was never even turned on and had it's first boot setup performed.
i'd honestly be very surprised if the tablet is even still functional considering it's sat there for years in a discharged state.
this was a legal purchase, is not a duplicated hardware node on any carrier network and is being used to access a legally and properly registered service that is being paid for by the registered account owner.
so: no fraud, no cloned device on any network and everything registered as it should be regarding the account owners, simply what amounts to a system repair using IMEI modification.
to date (going on roughly 3 years now) this fix has been rock solid and the only service interruption has been when the local power supply failed after the NEMA enclosure gasket had gotten damaged from a local tech's improper closure of the lid.
there is no specific law (in the USA) forbidding the alteration of an IMEI in and of itself without consideration to the intent or specific actions/activity being performed with the completion of that modification.
a prima facie case would likely be valid if we are talking about an actual cell phone as opposed to a hotspot or other data only terminal since there is little to no legitimate benefit to altering phone IMEIs (smart phone IMEIs are already one of the highest priority devices on carrier networks behind enterprise and first responder/mission critical nodes) outside of some very specific and niche scenarios;
but again, there COULD be legitimate reasons to do so and much of those are relatively easy to prove or disprove with information external to the person that is in question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You make good points. The key term is "access device," which was amended by legislation fairly recently to include tablets, cell phones, desktop computers, laptops, etc. I certainly agree that there are legitimate reasons as to why device identifiers would need to be modified. Correct, while there is not a statute that expressly prohibits alteration of IMEI/MEID numbers, I am merely outlining the federal statutes by which the government prosecutes such offenses. Similarly, for example. the Commonwealth of Kentucky does not have a statute prohibiting vehicular homicide. So there is no statute expressly saying that you can't go out and drive recklessly and kill people. However, such offenses are prosecuted under the manslaughter or wanton murder statutes. Changing an IMEI can get you prosecuted under the federal statute prohibiting the counterfeiting of an access device. I'm by no means saying that Homeland Security is coming after anybody changing an IMEI. But what I am saying is that federal prosecutors can technically charge an offender. I don't personally know of anybody who has been charged merely for altering device identifiers in the prima facie context. The US government most likely prosecutes only those offenders who have acted with nefarious or malicious intent, such as trafficking in cloned cell phones and the like. But again, my only point is that it is technically possible.
You and I appear to be on the same page on this topic. The only debate has been semantics it seems, whereas we are both correct on the points we are making.