Related
Finally today i had enough... I filed a formal complaint with the FTC against motorola and all other mobile device manufacturers out lining the cause and effect of these companies selling us devices that we are made to be only users of rather than owners and administrators the devices we purchased. Nothing will change until we make some one step in and set the rules, i am encouraging everyone here on xda to do the same ... here is a link to the example complaint i filed and the link to the appropriate form to be filed
http://t0dbld.blogspot.com/2011/03/m...otloaders.html
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.go...d.aspx?Lang=en
Here's some more food for though concerning smartphone security:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/carrier-intransigence-harms-internet-security
Perhaps we can spin our complaint with this in mind.
Basically since smartphones are essentially computers, I feel we should insist on being able to do what we want with them - Dell, HP, etc can't object when I choose to replace Windows on my PC with Linux, neither should Moto, HTC, etc be able to determine what we can and cannot run.
Also, if my phone has HDMI out, I can easily envision using it as a media player long after it's served its time as a phone.
IMO, people would be far better off signing this petition which will be presented to Motorola to try and persuade them to change their bootloader policies as they have previously promised to do.
It is a direct request to the one organisation who can change the matters for the better - Motorola themselves.
And unlike this thread, it doesn't rely upon subjective argument of entitlement.
Step666 said:
IMO, people would be far better off signing this petition which will be presented to Motorola to try and persuade them to change their bootloader policies as they have previously promised to do.
It is a direct request to the one organisation who can change the matters for the better - Motorola themselves.
And unlike this thread, it doesn't rely upon subjective argument of entitlement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
first of all is there any harm in both ? secondly i respectfully disagree, some one needs to be put in charge of these things and so far the only thing that governs tech is law suits, as noted above HP did loose to FTC when they tried to deny people from not using windows on there machines, also petitions although the preferred method of hippies and college students do not hold there weight in most courts, i do know from personal exp. as if you really wish i can show you my supreme court case in the state of Michigan and yes years prior we started with a neighborhood petition that didn't even hold up in the local commissions and courts. either way i have signed said petition but i feel that if we get the FTC involved it will help the Petition as eyes will be upon it.... ALSO please keep in mind this is not just motorola they just happen to be better than other companies, jsut like computers we should not have to hack anything for administrator privileges, or to wipe the device and load are own software
But on what grounds would the FTC uphold your complaint?
Just because jailbreaking etc is not illegal, that doesn't give you a right to be able to install custom ROMs onto your handset, nor does it automatically make the measures that companies like Motorola take to prevent modification of their handsets illegal.
You say that the FTC ruled against HP for preventing laptop owners from installing Linux - how come when I Google 'FTC HP Linux', I find nothing relating to that?
Step666 said:
But on what grounds would the FTC uphold your complaint?
Just because jailbreaking etc is not illegal, that doesn't give you a right to be able to install custom ROMs onto your handset, nor does it automatically make the measures that companies like Motorola take to prevent modification of their handsets illegal.
You say that the FTC ruled against HP for preventing laptop owners from installing Linux - how come when I Google 'FTC HP Linux', I find nothing relating to that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this is not about jail breaking and if you make it about such it will not get looked at, this is about being sold a device that we are not given administrative right to or the ability to wipe and install any software we want on it.... You wouldn't stand for this on your home pc would you ?
Because the ruling was not about linux, it was about being forced to have windows and paying for the licensing, it became much bigger than just hp as well but it is there including the end results of hp having to offer it with out windows and to refund people's money that did not agree to windows terms and returned the license
t0dbld said:
this is about being sold a device that we are not given administrative right to or the ability to wipe and install any software we want on it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, ok, fine.
But that detail aside, my question still remains unanswered - why would they rule in your favour on that basis?
In what way are you entitled to be able to completely wipe your phone and install whatever you want onto it?
t0dbld said:
Because the ruling was not about linux, it was about being forced to have windows and paying for the licensing, it became much bigger than just hp as well but it is there including the end results of hp having to offer it with out windows and to refund people's money that did not agree to windows terms and returned the license
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's different then - it's one thing for HP to force customers to pay the licence fee for a copy of Windows they don't need/want but no-one is being forced to pay for an Android licence here, Motorola et al's practices are not costing the end user money.
I'm just trying to understand why you believe the FTC would consider your complaint, let alone side against the manufacturers.
look dude your still not getting it and thats ok, do it or dont, try to help or dont, have a good day
only a matter of time b4 these guys realize locked bootloaders dont help any1..
Updated 09/6/12 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=31190482&postcount=81
This is a combined log of my attempt to get answers from Verizon and Samsung regarding the encrypted bootloader. I currently have a ticket with level III tech support at Samsung. It took a huge dog and pony show to get this far and I have had several forum members contact me asking to pass along info and ask questions when I finally get a hold of the right people.
I posted most of this in another thread, but it not where it should have been so I am moving it for a mod so we can keep that other development thread clean. Its 8am EST and Samsung Level III should be open in three hours as they are not staffed 24/7 like Level II/I.
For the record Samsungs Tech Support phone number is 800-726-7864
Just remember the rep you talk to regardless of what their position in the company is had no say in the encrypting of the bootloader. Its not their fault Verizon screwed us, please keep that in mind if you call. Using 5c technical words will get you past Level I but level II seemed to be on point. It took some manipulative games to get the guy to admit there was even a level III department; at first he told me level II was the highest I could go in tech support. Will update with more info when I have something.
I am also considering contacting the firm that handled the Motorola V710 lawsuit against Verizon years ago. We won that one and anyone who wanted got to trade in their phone and accessories for a full refund, no ETF, and if they wanted could also get a new device w/o extending their contract. I hate lawyers and would rather cut off my pinky finger then deal with them but it may be the only option in the end. Its like Verizon delivered us cake, then shot our dog and walked away. So mentally exhausted dealing with this crap.
Lastly, I was able to get a hold of Verizon corporate and had a low level executive call me back. This was before the device was released and we knew the bootloader was encrypted. She told me to save her number, and I am glad I did because once we found out about the lockdown I called her back and left VM. Should hear back from her Monday.
Verizon's Corporate Contact Info.
Verizon Corporate Office Headquarters:
140 West Street
New York, NY 10007
Corporate Phone Number: 1-212-395-1000
Corporate Fax Number: 1-212-571-1897
Original Post:
Ok, just an update. Level III Samsung tech support is not 24/7 like Level II/I. I have a ticket in the system regarding the issue and its been forwarded to Level III.
They will be in tomorrow (Saturday) from 8am (PST) to 7pm (PST) and I have to call back to get a hold of someone in the Level III department. I will keep dragging this up the chain of command till I can get some answers. Level II once again confirmed what we already know, Verizon did mess with the phone. Level II said don't bother with Fastboot because were not getting in that way. I don't know if he was lying but he seemed to know exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned the odin/fastboot switch.
One more thing to note, I am not sure I believe him but he said that they sent the phones to Verizon, and its Verizon that did the messing around not Samsung. I find it hard to believe Verizon was able to do this without Samsung support.
I don't have high hopes of getting anything that will be able to help us out of Level III but I will try. They have also lodged a my customer complaint and supposedly I am going to be getting a call back from someone from their corporate office in consumer relations.
I wish I could help more on the technical side but my experience only takes me to the point where everyone else has gotten with fastboot. I am however quite the people person when it comes to making noise with corporations and will keep up the good fight with Verizon / Samsung Corporate.
If there is anything specific you want me to ask Level III send me a PM by tomorrow morning and I will address it with them when I call. I know enough that I should be able to at least hold a conversation with them on the subject but more ammo would be great. I would also be willing to conference call with a repeatable dev/mod when I call them so that you don't have to jump through the two hours of crap I just did to get this escalated.
Post 2: (A reply to a forum member asking for an update)
I asked them if there is a reason I can't get into fastboot and the guy said because Verizon has locked down the device. I asked him "how" and "why" but he was unable to provide me with an answer to both questions. He then referred me to Level III as he said they were the ones who could discuss how it was done. I asked him if there was a way around it through odin using .ops he went silent for a while and said he had no information to provide on the subject and just reiterated that Verizon has made changes to the device software and I would have to refer to them regarding those changes.
With regard to the "why" question he simply said that Samsung could not comment on carrier practices only that Verizon requested the lockdown and that the phones were sent to them first to have it applied. He made it sound like Samsung told them to go take a flying leap and Verizon went ahead and did it anyway. Again, were talking about a rep here so take it with a grain of salt.
I talked about the FCC's Block C agreement regarding carriers not locking devices but the rep said he did not have a comment on the subject as he was just tech support. Block C is probably the only legal course of action we have but despite the FCC saying they were going to enforce the rule, we all know how the FCC could give a crap.
I am going to flat out ask Level III to do the right thing and leak a file for us to fix the issue. I may be nuts but I am not delusional and have no real expectoration they will help. I am however going to do my best to get them to slip something that may help a dev find a solution. If I can get at least a small puzzle piece out of Level III it might be the crack in the dam we need to blow open the floodgates.
07/11/12 Samsung Level III blew me off yesterday as well saying they were still looking into the matter. I called again today and finally received an official reply. Samsung says they have no information exactly what Verizon has done to the phone, they do not know exactly what is and is not signed/encrypted, and they have no further information. I have submitted a complaint to the president of Samsung USA but thats as far as I could go with Samsung. They have closed my case and can not provide further information. I asked if they had an original system image before Verizon gimped the phone and they said "yes but we can not provide that to our customers per carrier agreement."
Lastly I was told that there is going to be a Verizon "Developer Edition" that you can buy directly from Samsung in the coming weeks. This is in "direct response to complaints filed by customers" according to Samsung and will be distributed and supported by Samsung directly. It will cost $600+ and basically be the same phone but w/o an signed/encrypted bootloader.
Off the record information from an unnamed outside source: Verizon is releasing a OTA update to patch the root exploit in the coming days. This OTA will break and prevent re-root as well as try and stop people from using the image off of the "Developer Edition" to mess with the "normal" Verizon Galaxy S3. I don't have specific details; sorry. Do not OTA unless you want to loose root and probably not get it back. Verizon is fk'ing pissed; I mean really pissed that we have root.
From what I am hearing, Verizon's "top %5 data abusers" are all typically rooted/romed. The whole point of locking this phone down was to mess with these unlimited data customers. Verizon started this war; let us end it and make them loath the day they decided to fk with the dev community.
Again, my case Support case has been closed with Samsung. We will get nothing further from them nor any direct help. My case with Verizon corporate is also closed; they said Samsung will offer a Developer model directly and if I wanted that kind of access I needed to talk to them not Verizon.
The lawyers still have not called me back. No shock.
Up until this point I have been angry; now I am pissed. This isn't over; not by a long shot.
Will update when I have more information.
07/17/12
Samsung "Office of the President" -
Phone 877-268-2121
eMail [email protected]
FYI Samsung records phone conversations between the 4th minute and the 18th minute. Anything you say after minute 4 and before minute 18 "MAY" be recorded. I know that sounds like a strange window of recording, but its straight out of the mouth of a sympathetic to the cause tech support rep. Just had a great conversation with a guy, nothing is fixed of course but needless to say, there are people in Samsung that have been hearing rumors that the company is tired of carrier's crap and with in the next few years will be offering all Samsung headsets for a subsidized price, directly through Samsung. There will probably be trade-in specials, loyalty discounts, etc. I can't wait not to buy my devices directly through Verizon! Secondly, as of now (Verizon lies again) anything software related with this phone is coming from, programmed by, and completely influenced by Verizon. Samsung manufacturing does not touch the device or support updates after its in the hands of Verizon. The developer model is not Verizon approved, nor is Verizon happy its going to be sold [from what I am told] however per FCC open network regulations Verizon has to allow the device on the network. Updates for the developer model will be directly from Samsung.
I was able to get the Samsung Apps (store) sideloaded on my device BTW. Verizon requested it be removed which is why its not on the device pre-installed. S-Suggest is NOT the same thing as Samsung Apps. Will Write something up here on XDA later when I get a chance.
07/24/12
The Electronic Frontier Foundation called me back and said they need more info on Block C. I am out of town until next Monday and let them know I would get back to them in a few days. They also are finding a lawyer who will do it pro bono. Looks like this may actually make it to court.
So we have root but we are still locked down unlike all other carriers. Basically this is going to turn into a Droid X situation and for those who know what I am talking about you know how bad this still sucks.
I am tired of this crap guys, and think with the amount of SG3 phones sold in the US and specifically Verizon, this is the time to strike back against all encrypted devices not just the GS3. We have dealt with this garbage long enough and now its time to end nonsense.
Kirtland and Packard, (310) 536-1000, 2361 Rosecrans Ave Ste 450, El Segundo, CA 90245
That's the law firm that won the huge case against Verizon over the Motorola v710 BT lockdown. I have left them a message asking if they will take this case too. In reality this one is going to vastly larger then the Moto case because of the number of users that have this device.
Please call them and let them know on the main VM that you too have been effected by this lockdown, or any lockdown in the US on any carrier. The more people who call the more likely they will take the case. Lots of people calling is how the guys over at Howard Forums were able to get the ball rolling on the v710, so let history repeat itself for the sake of every dev, phone enthusiast, and civil rights advocate.
ROM developers usually work off of donations and by encrypting this and other devices Verizon is stealing from these developers who's livelihood is phone software development. Software developers who want an open platform also have to deal with the hassle that Verizon and other carriers have put them through by locking down devices. If the personal computer was locked down like this when it was first created and sold to people we would never be where we were today technology wise. The crippling of our mobile devices needs to stop, and it needs to stop now.
Its time to take the fight to Verizon and hopefully end the lockdowns once and for all. If the lawfirm takes the case this is going to be winner takes all. This may be our best shot to end device lockdowns in the US once and for all.
I think the push we will make is going to be Block C. Normally Verizon could argue that they locked the device [against the FCC Block C mandate] because of network security. This is going to be hard for them to argue though when every other carrier in the US and internationally has not encrypted the device. It's a long shot, and its going to be up hill, but as far as I see it this is our best chance and the time to strike on this issue is now.
Samsung Level III opens in 30 min. Will update again soon.
Level III is not in on the weekends, so I was just told by the automated message I got when the guy transferred me to that department. ok... Not what they told me yesterday but ok.
So Monday at 8am PST it is, and that's also when Verizon corporate will be calling me back too as the past two calls they have made to me have been the ass crack of dawn. If I time it right I can conference the two in and let them try and point the finger at the other one, to each others faces. No more "That's what the manufacture wanted, go talk to them" vs "That's what the carrier wanted, talk to them" runaround bull****.
Anyway, no updates till Monday then. That gives me time to root.
i'll be the first to say it but thank you
going above and beyond especially considering nobody asked you to do this. great work and i hope it leads to some results
chill145 said:
i'll be the first to say it but thank you
going above and beyond especially considering nobody asked you to do this. great work and i hope it leads to some results
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes thank you 100%, we are all in this together.
Also please file FCC Consumer Complaints against Verizon for potentially violating the openness requirements of the Block C spectrum purchasing agreement.
https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type=2000F
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/it-is-illegal-for-verizon-to-lock-some-bootloaders/
It's a long shot, but maybe worth it.
Have filed complaint with FCC and BBB, posted poor review on both Blue and White versons on VZW website, wall post ripping them apart on VZW facebook, poor reviews on every device site that will let me do so that I know of, personal contact with VZW reps filing complaints.
Any other avenues we can take?
Here's what I wrote in my FCC complaint:
The new Samsung Galaxy SIII on Verizon Wireless has a locked and encrypted bootloader, which appears to violate the openness requirements that Verizon agreed to when it purchased Block C, pursuant to § 27.16 (b) of 47 CFR Ch. I (10–1–10 Edition) available here-- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title47-vol2/pdf/CFR-2010-title47-vol2-sec27-16.pdf
§ 27.16 (e) clearly states "Handset locking prohibited" except under certain circumstances previously delineated. The anti-consumer actions taken by Verizon impinge upon the free of use of devices by consumers, and potentially harms the livelihoods of developers, who may not be able to do their work on the device of their choice.
I would appreciate the FCC investigating and clarifying this situation.
Thank you,
Thinking further about it, with how prominent devices are in today's world, would various news providers not want to run this story as well?
I recommend tipping off any local newspaper and news station you have access to. Lets get this story out there~!
Thalinor said:
So we have root but we are still locked down unlike all other carriers. Basically this is going to turn into a Droid X situation and for those who know what I am talking about you know how bad this still sucks.
I am tired of this crap guys, and think with the amount of SG3 phones sold in the US and specifically Verizon, this is the time to strike back against all encrypted devices not just the GS3. We have dealt with this garbage long enough and now its time to end nonsense.
Kirtland and Packard, (310) 536-1000, 2361 Rosecrans Ave Ste 450, El Segundo, CA 90245
That's the law firm that won the huge case against Verizon over the Motorola v710 BT lockdown. I have left them a message asking if they will take this case too. In reality this one is going to vastly larger then the Moto case because of the number of users that have this device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that the dev's are working there rear ends off, and I appreciate all their efforts. I am truly pulling for them and hope that they can get the bootloader figured out. I'm not an expert, but in my opinion the ROMs on the DX didn't compare to a fully unlocked device and I'd prefer not to have to suffer through 2+ years of touchwiz.
Thalinor,
I agree that this maybe turning into the Droid X. As a droid x owner, waiting and watching for 18 months to see VZW and Motorola dump on us, I don't think we'll get anywhere with them. There was a huge effort on the DX with petitions, phone calls, emails, twitter, and FB posts.
Just a thought, but what about petitioning the law firm to take up this case. We are not going to get anywhere from VZW's or Samsung's pity for us. If this bootloader is truly encrypted, and if it is anything like the DX, the only way we will get this device completely unlocked is through a legal obligation on VZW's part. I think our energy would be better spent with the Attorneys who stand to profit from this case rather than burning our energy on VZW and Samsung who probably don't give a crap. I would think that the law-firm would have some interest in this (maybe?):
File with the FCC:
http://www.fcc.gov/complaints/
Talk about the Block C complaints. Don't attack them.
Post on VZW's Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/verizon
Talk about how dissatisfied you are and how you're looking to switch. Don't attack them.
Post on Samsung Mobile's Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/SamsungMobile
Don't attack them. Talk about how you will reconsider purchasing their devices in the future. They don't want to have to lock bootloaders, Verizon is almost certainly making them do it.
File with the BBB:
http://www.bbb.org/us/verizon-wireless/
Talk about how anti-competitive their practices are and how dissatisfied you are as a customer. Require an answer.
Complain to Verizon Wireless' Site:
https://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/contact/email.jsp
Don't attack them. Keep in mind you're talking to an employee, they didn't choose to lock down the bootloader. Be respectful but make your concern noted.
The problem lies with Verizon Wireless. They believe that there are not enough people concerned about this to affect their profit margin. You need to show that you will vote with your dollar and move somewhere else if this complaint is not answered. Also, bring up the Block C agreement. There are potential legal repercussions-- meaning that the FCC may be the best place to direct your complaints. Be respectful, I know we're upset, but being pissed off won't get you anywhere.
I just filled out a complaint with the FCC basically asking them to enforce the Block C agreement from Verizon.
I'll phone the lawyers posted on the first page when I get a chance at work tomorrow.
amt897 said:
File with the FCC:
http://www.fcc.gov/complaints/
Talk about the Block C complaints. Don't attack them.
Post on VZW's Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/verizon
Talk about how dissatisfied you are and how you're looking to switch. Don't attack them.
Post on Samsung Mobile's Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/SamsungMobile
Don't attack them. Talk about how you will reconsider purchasing their devices in the future. They don't want to have to lock bootloaders, Verizon is almost certainly making them do it.
File with the BBB:
http://www.bbb.org/us/verizon-wireless/
Talk about how anti-competitive their practices are and how dissatisfied you are as a customer. Require an answer.
Complain to Verizon Wireless' Site:
https://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/contact/email.jsp
Don't attack them. Keep in mind you're talking to an employee, they didn't choose to lock down the bootloader. Be respectful but make your concern noted.
The problem lies with Verizon Wireless. They believe that there are not enough people concerned about this to affect their profit margin. You need to show that you will vote with your dollar and move somewhere else if this complaint is not answered. Also, bring up the Block C agreement. There are potential legal repercussions-- meaning that the FCC may be the best place to direct your complaints. Be respectful, I know we're upset, but being pissed off won't get you anywhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't even own an S3, nor am I on Verizon, but damn't...I'm doing every one of things and calling just out of principle. I'm glad I left Verizon a long time ago, but they still tried to get more for money for almost 2 years. Damn near ruined my credit...assholes are going down.
Sent from my SGH-I727 using xda premium
I'd love to see this in major media:
"The Samsung S3 is a excellent smartphone, but Verizon's software modifications have made it unlikely to be upgraded and supported long term. If that's important to you, we recommend you consider another carrier."
My girlfriend used to work for the local news, I'll talk to her about contacting her friends at the station and see if I can get a face to face, or at least an email contact. I'll have to dig up all the info I can on the block C stuff and locked/encrypted bootloaders to take to them first.
Sent from my Droid X until I get my SGS3
block c
The Block C issue relates more toward unlocked devices like the nexus on the play store than unlocked bootloaders. You may be able to press the unlocked bootloader issue under the 'open applications' provision, but obviously that did a ton of good for Google Wallet. Of course, I can't find a single device you can use on Verizon's network that isn't held in verizon's death grip, so even the open device provision seems to be being ignored. The worst part is that verizon filed suits against these provisions and LOST. But true to form, if you have enough money and pull, and are willing to screw your customers as every turn (share everything plans are such a great deal right?) you can break the law over and over in broad daylight, and no one with power will bat an eye. Also, I'm not sure why the 'open application' provision was never really used as a battering ram when in came to things like tethering applications.
I think this type of work is very important. Thanks so much. Very much looking forward to hearing more from the companies themselves about why they make these types of decisions. Can't wait for an update here.
Sent from my Incredible 2 using xda app-developers app
Complained with the FCC, here is my complaint for anyone looking for somewhat of a template.
Recently, after preordering a Samsung Galaxy s3 handset from Verizon, I learned that they have violated the openness requirements of the Block C spectrum purchasing agreement by encrypting my device. This directly impacts my ability to enjoy my phone, and take advantage of the spectrum which Verizon owns. While I understand that the purchasing agreement gives Verizon leeway in regards to "reasonable" protection of the network, no other carrier in the United States (or the world), has done this, leading me to believe that this action is indeed unreasonable. It is unfair and anti-competitive for a company to misuse frequencies they own in this way.
I appreciate your time, and would appreciate a response in this matter.
Thank you,
With Verizon Twitter claiming it was Samsung, I'm curious what both companies said.
skennelly said:
I know that the dev's are working there rear ends off, and I appreciate all their efforts. I am truly pulling for them and hope that they can get the bootloader figured out. I'm not an expert, but in my opinion the ROMs on the DX didn't compare to a fully unlocked device and I'd prefer not to have to suffer through 2+ years of touchwiz.
Thalinor,
Just a thought, but what about petitioning the law firm to take up this case. We are not going to get anywhere from VZW's or Samsung's pity for us. If this bootloader is truly encrypted, and if it is anything like the DX, the only way we will get this device completely unlocked is through a legal obligation on VZW's part. I think our energy would be better spent with the Attorneys who stand to profit from this case rather than burning our energy on VZW and Samsung who probably don't give a crap. I would think that the law-firm would have some interest in this (maybe?):
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the whole point! I certainly don't have the money to go up against Verizon and do not want to make a dime out of this; that's not the point at all. I want Verizon to once and for all agree to stop ****ing with our phones. Phones should be sold locked not signed/encrypted.
Locked protects Verizon or the manufacture from having to eat the costs of a new phone when an end user breaks their device doing something irresponsible. I don't want Verizon paying for people's screwed up devices because eventually it will lead to MY bill going up. Its not my fault if someone screw's up their device. On the other hand by encrypting the bootloader Verizon is forcing people to do things that may lead to breaking your phone. If the manufacture offered a phone number for unlocking, where you would agree that unless it was something hardware defective, if you unlock and your device breaks, its not under warranty. Problem solved for everyone; no encrypted bootloader needed.
I am going after Verizon but this is really about every carrier who gimps cell phones. Smartphones have become pocket computers. They are no longer PDA's, or "like" pocket computers, they ARE pocket computers. Hell, my SG3 is got better hardware specs than the **** netbooks people waited in line for last black Friday at Walmart. If we consider netbooks in that they come giving the buyer full administrative access over the device and yet still give the end user the option to hook it up to Wi-Fi. One way or another my devices are hooking up to a company who I pay for data and/or voice service. My rights should be universal and now that the device in my pocket has evolved into a full blown computer, my access rights should evolve as well. Whether its a computer in your pocket or a computer on your desk, it can be used in accordance with your providers service agreement, or it can be abused.
Prejudging your entire customer base to abuse your network and handing down sentence as judge, jury, and executioner like Verizon has done, before people have even had the chance to make the decision to do right or wrong; to me that just violates every ideal set forth in this countries constitution. I am ****ing sick of corporate america ****ting on this countries citizens, and the whole god damn world for that matter. It needs to stop. While I despise lawyers to the core, I sincerely hope they take on this case and prove there are still people in the field who remember why their profession exists (Hint: Its NOT to make money) and that there is some justice left in this country.
/end rant
Update: Talked to Verizon Exec, they have passed info on to the lawyers to look over and may or may not get back to me; at this point its out of her hands.
Update: I have not heard back from the lawyers above, but another user here on XDA PM'd me and said they were able to talk to someone today who told them that the legal team was looking into the case and make a decision after getting more information. They have my number, if they want to call me they can; if not I could care less who spear heads this as long as the battle is fought and won.
Update: I called Samsung, talked to Level I, they tried to transfer me to level III, I was put on told and Level I came back and said they would call me back later. The call never came. I will try them again more vigorously tomorrow.
MichaelVash7886 said:
With Verizon Twitter claiming it was Samsung, I'm curious what both companies said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LMFAO @ Verizon's blatant bull**** lies. Why would Samsung decide, at their own free will and expense, to sign-encrypt ONLY Verizon's Galaxy S3, and not one other carrier in the world? Verizon is full of **** and the fact they think the line "Its the other guys fault" is actually going to work, is flat out ****ing insulting.
Screenshot that and post it here please. I do not use social networking; if they really need to spy on me they have my smartphone information, and know where to find me.
I know that Dan found an exploit, I have a feeling this is part of why nobody seems to be complaining to AT&T about the locked bootloader, but the problem is that it isn't a permanent fix, granted we have the ability to disable automated updates, etc. My problem is that AT&T is going to lock all devices from here on out, simply because we allowed them too.
So what can we do?
AnthomX said:
So what can we do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't give AT&T your business? I know the locked bootloader issue incenses the Android modding community, but the vast majority of consumers don't know and don't care. AT&T is practically the government, and they don't care either. It's frustrating, but if you don't like it please vote with your dollars.
burhanistan said:
Don't give AT&T your business? I know the locked bootloader issue incenses the Android modding community, but the vast majority of consumers don't know and don't care. AT&T is practically the government, and they don't care either. It's frustrating, but if you don't like it please vote with your dollars.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can agree with that, my only complaint is the small majority of us that notice the lock. Speaking with our money in this case isn't going to make much of a point. There simply isn't enough of us to make them take a hit in their margins. So my guess is that in this instance, it is, what it is, for us? I know AT&T provides us (me and family) the best service in terms of voice/data.
That is just disappointing, because other carriers will follow behind it.
AnthomX said:
I know that Dan found an exploit, I have a feeling this is part of why nobody seems to be complaining to AT&T about the locked bootloader, but the problem is that it isn't a permanent fix, granted we have the ability to disable automated updates, etc. My problem is that AT&T is going to lock all devices from here on out, simply because we allowed them too.
So what can we do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right now there isn't many legal avenues in favor of the consumer concerning the access to unlocked devices. Congress has given the carriers most of the deciding power over what extent the end-user may manipulate the software on the device. After a petition gained enough friction and reached the White House, the executive branch has agreed consumers deserve the right to invoke their will over devices sold to them without criminal liability, there has yet been any legislative change regarding the matter.
Ultimately, what we can do is multi-faceted to get the attention of carriers [AT&T] to cave to our demands:
1: We can vote with our money by refusing to purchase devices distributed by them, citing their abuse of power over devices sold to consumers -- leaving us no freedom to do as we please with merchandise we contractually own.
2: We can appeal to authority by raising the issue to a federal level to be examined by either higher courts, consumer affairs, Better Business Bureau, or writing your congressman.
3: Start an online petition and hope it gains enough traction to put AT&T and other carriers in a negative light publically on the national stage.
These options work well with numbers and have a better chance of success when done in conjunction with one another. The armchair approach has very little chance of success and often doesn't even merit a reply by way of spokesperson.
AnthomX said:
I can agree with that, my only complaint is the small majority of us that notice the lock. Speaking with our money in this case isn't going to make much of a point. There simply isn't enough of us to make them take a hit in their margins. So my guess is that in this instance, it is, what it is, for us? I know AT&T provides us (me and family) the best service in terms of voice/data.
That is just disappointing, because other carriers will follow behind it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, but to play devil's advocate, I can see why AT&T would want to lock down devices. I imagine since they've been selling Android devices they've had to process tons of RMAs on devices that were bricked by amateurs installing the wrong ROMs. That may well amount to a minuscule hit in their bloated profit margin, but a corporation tends to do whatever it can to prevent dollars from leaking out. If the locked bootloader prevents the casual ROM flasher from bricking a new S4, then they view that as success. I don't know if that's why they did it, though.
The other side to that, of course, that an unlocked bootloader makes it easy to restore a bricked device back to stock. I'd like to see AT&T and other carriers reach out to the dev community more and have some provisions for installing alternate ROMs and OSes on the devices. I'd also like them to just sell me bandwidth and not interfere with content or operating systems, but I won't hold my breath!
antde201 said:
Right now there isn't many legal avenues in favor of the consumer concerning the access to unlocked devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
burhanistan said:
I agree, but to play devil's advocate,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AGREED very much Burhanistan, I know that is a hit for AT&T, but you know, they could offer repair services at a decent rate that could fix these bad flashes, as most of the time only a JTAG is needed. Which leads into support and encouragement for the Android communities. But, one can dream. They are more about that profit margin than a profit margin AND great customer service.
Antde, I am looking at starting a petition, maybe gain some traction there? Who knows, but I think you are right, in the end, AT&T doesn't want our business, and I am ok with that. Unfortunately it will be a headache similar to swapping from Apple after using them for so many years. Time to bust out the aspirin I guess. We will see.
Becasue carriers dont care about what we think about locked bootloaders.At the end of the day this device is making millions for them think about it to them it doesnt make a difference.I myself work for a carrier in the U.S and trust me to them what ever rants and complaints we post mean squat....
Anyways its going to be unlocked soon when the VZW releases so whatever I dont even get why we should make such a big deal locked bootloaders always get hacked ...
burhanistan said:
I agree, but to play devil's advocate, I can see why AT&T would want to lock down devices. I imagine since they've been selling Android devices they've had to process tons of RMAs on devices that were bricked by amateurs installing the wrong ROMs. That may well amount to a minuscule hit in their bloated profit margin, but a corporation tends to do whatever it can to prevent dollars from leaking out. If the locked bootloader prevents the casual ROM flasher from bricking a new S4, then they view that as success. I don't know if that's why they did it, though.
The other side to that, of course, that an unlocked bootloader makes it easy to restore a bricked device back to stock. I'd like to see AT&T and other carriers reach out to the dev community more and have some provisions for installing alternate ROMs and OSes on the devices. I'd also like them to just sell me bandwidth and not interfere with content or operating systems, but I won't hold my breath!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's more to a carrier's decision to lock down a device's bootloader than just pure spite and asserting their control. Carriers are also charged with mobile security, protection of their assets (bandwidth), and again security.
An unlocked bootloader theoretically opens the floodgates to a plethora of security threats to both the device and information stored and/or shared therein. Google and their partners are pushing mobile security to both stay relevant in the mobile OS market and to appeal to other markets where they may have been previously overlooked, such as defense and business.
You also have to consider the possibility of unregulated mobile tethering which falls under the umbrella of loss prevention to any business.
Lastly, as you and others have mentioned, the possibility of insurance claims due to bricked devices. Though I'd argue that this area doesn't pose much risk to the carrier directly as you void your warranty as soon as you flash a custom ROM.
So with all of these facets together, you'd see how it would be a no brainer to a corporation to purchase the secure version of an OEM device. Especially if you've chosen to adopt a subsidized device. The contract you sign is subject to whatever terms they produce and if you do not agree, you're free to stay with your current device and leave when your contract expires. I don't care for this sentiment, but it's the reality they have procured.
I think they did it to fight back against tethering.
ATT getting phone manufacturers to lock their phones started a while back. IIRC the first big uproar was for the HTC Vivid. IMHO it's for security and ATT keeping their big accounts. BB ruled for so long because of security. iPhones are the same way. Companies want a secure device. Moto (one of the main ones that market to business use) has always had the stingiest bootloaders regardless of carrier.
poofyhairguy said:
I think they did it to fight back against tethering.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya because that really stopped us from tethering... Oh wait..
My DM with a T-Mobile rep.
That was a waste since it was a known fact already. Wish you had asked them what bands the phone supports since they don't list them all anywhere. AT&T lists them all on the website and looks like the best choice if T-Mobile won't provide that info
lightninbug said:
My DM with a T-Mobile rep.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You said this...
I wouldn't be so sure until it's proven.
Finally, the Exynos 8895 also includes what Samsung is calling an “enhanced security sub-system with a separate security processing unit” for use with user authentication, mobile payments, and the like. Based on Samsung’s description this sounds a heck of a lot like Apple’s Secure Enclave, which would be a very welcome development, as in Apple’s case it has made their phones a lot harder to break into.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11149/samsung-announces-exynos-8895-soc-10nm
In reading your exchange with T-Mobile it came across fairly righteous - "it's my phone and I should be able to do what I want with it." Knowing T-Mobile's phones have locked bootloaders it's your choice whether to buy them or, like the CSR said in your exchange, find a phone that suits you and "bring your own." Trying to get them to reverse a security policy that helps far more people than it hurts seems like a pretty futile exercise.
The value of the modding community to a company with 52+M wireless subscribers is pretty low. There are 336K active (used the site in the past 30 days) XDA members. If every XDA member was on T-Mobile and moved to another carrier in protest that's less than 1/10 of 1% of T-Mobile's subscriber base. Samsung, the carriers, and even Google are far more interested in national and global corporate accounts and those accounts demand security. That's why Knox, locked bootloaders, and what's mentioned as coming in the above article exist. Companies like OnePlus, Oppo, and HTC aren't ever going to land big corporate and government contracts where Samsung can and does. That's why carriers and Samsung lock their bootloaders. The company I work for only allows iPhones to connect to Exchange. We Android users have to use some kludged containerized e-mail product that doesn't integrate with the rest of the phone and even then its only available on current model Samsung phones. It is what it is.
We'll get the engineering firmware leaked and have root anyways. Our little way of protesting.
ethanscooter said:
We'll get the engineering firmware leaked and have root anyways. Our little way of protesting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe I'll wait for the Pixel2 this fall. I know that will be unlocked, easily rootable, and supported by the dev community. There are few options for the S7 now and I expect much the same for the S8. My last Samsung phone was a Note 3 and the dev support was limited. I love my current Nexus 6 so I am in no rush.
almahix said:
Maybe I'll wait for the Pixel2 this fall. I know that will be unlocked, easily rootable, and supported by the dev community. There are few options for the S7 now and I expect much the same for the S8. My last Samsung phone was a Note 3 and the dev support was limited. I love my current Nexus 6 so I am in no rush.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This might be a good plan...How big is the screen supposed to be?
954wrecker said:
That was a waste since it was a known fact already. Wish you had asked them what bands the phone supports since they don't list them all anywhere. AT&T lists them all on the website and looks like the best choice if T-Mobile won't provide that info
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here you go. It's been listed a day after since preorders started.
http://www.samsung.com/us/support/owners/product/galaxy-s8-plus-t-mobile
2G GSM: GSM850,GSM900,DCS1800,PCS1900
3G UMTS: B1(2100),B2(1900),B4(AWS),B5(850)
3G TD-SCDMA: B34(2010),B39(1880)
4G FDD LTE: B1(2100),B2(1900),B3(1800),B4(AWS),B5(850),B7(2600),B8(900),B12(700),B13(700),B18(800),B19(800),B20(800),B25(1900),B26(800),B66(AWS-3)
4G TDD LTE: B38(2600),B39(1900),B40(2300),B41(2500)
BarryH_GEG said:
You said this...
I wouldn't be so sure until it's proven.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11149/samsung-announces-exynos-8895-soc-10nm[/I]
In reading your exchange with T-Mobile it came across fairly righteous - "it's my phone and I should be able to do what I want with it." Knowing T-Mobile's phones have locked bootloaders it's your choice whether to buy them or, like the CSR said in your exchange, find a phone that suits you and "bring your own." Trying to get them to reverse a security policy that helps far more people than it hurts seems like a pretty futile exercise.
The value of the modding community to a company with 52+M wireless subscribers is pretty low. There are 336K active (used the site in the past 30 days) XDA members. If every XDA member was on T-Mobile and moved to another carrier in protest that's less than 1/10 of 1% of T-Mobile's subscriber base. Samsung, the carriers, and even Google are far more interested in national and global corporate accounts and those accounts demand security. That's why Knox, locked bootloaders, and what's mentioned as coming in the above article exist. Companies like OnePlus, Oppo, and HTC aren't ever going to land big corporate and government contracts where Samsung can and does. That's why carriers and Samsung lock their bootloaders. The company I work for only allows iPhones to connect to Exchange. We Android users have to use some kludged containerized e-mail product that doesn't integrate with the rest of the phone and even then its only available on current model Samsung phones. It is what it is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really don't agree with this. There is no reason they couldn't design a phone to be secure and able to flash other operating systems. Windows for example can use bitlocker, but that doesn't stop you from formating the drive out and install linux. I agree if you're leasing that phone the leasing company has the right to protect its asset, but if you buy it outright, you should be able to do what you want with it. Even if you had to send the phone to Samsung, you should have some avenue to unlock a device you own.
YellowGTO said:
I really don't agree with this. There is no reason they couldn't design a phone to be secure and able to flash other operating systems. Windows for example can use bitlocker, but that doesn't stop you from formating the drive out and install linux. I agree if you're leasing that phone the leasing company has the right to protect its asset, but if you buy it outright, you should be able to do what you want with it. Even if you had to send the phone to Samsung, you should have some avenue to unlock a device you own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the XDA spirit!
YellowGTO said:
I really don't agree with this. There is no reason they couldn't design a phone to be secure and able to flash other operating systems. Windows for example can use bitlocker, but that doesn't stop you from formating the drive out and install linux. I agree if you're leasing that phone the leasing company has the right to protect its asset, but if you buy it outright, you should be able to do what you want with it. Even if you had to send the phone to Samsung, you should have some avenue to unlock a device you own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kind of the tail (the single digit percentage of people wanting to root their phones regardless of the security implications) wagging the dog (everyone else concerned about security and 100% of companies wanting to protect their business data). Android security is so totally bankrupt that the company I work for won't allow Android devices to connect to Exchange. While iPhone users have full EAS access I'm stuck using OWA. I personally hope Samsung goes beyond KNOX to secure their phones so I and others like me can get real access to company assets rather than dealing with kluges and work-arounds. I'm sure that's why Samsung's doing more than Google to secure their phones. People who want unlocked bootloaders and root access have plenty of options other than Samsung so it's not like anyone's being harmed.
BarryH_GEG said:
Kind of the tail (the single digit percentage of people wanting to root their phones regardless of the security implications) wagging the dog (everyone else concerned about security and 100% of companies wanting to protect their business data). Android security is so totally bankrupt that the company I work for won't allow Android devices to connect to Exchange. While iPhone users have full EAS access I'm stuck using OWA. I personally hope Samsung goes beyond KNOX to secure their phones so I and others like me can get real access to company assets rather than dealing with kluges and work-arounds. I'm sure that's why Samsung's doing more than Google to secure their phones. People who want unlocked bootloaders and root access have plenty of options other than Samsung so it's not like anyone's being harmed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung can add anything they want to secure the phones. Doesn't change the fact that you should be able to unlock the phone via some service. Konx is already the highest rated mass produced enterprise software (http://www.informationweek.com/mobi...eats-ios-android-gartner-finds/d/d-id/1325145), and it does just fine being rooted. It's a very expensive device that pretty much becomes garbage after a few years. On the other hand, I still use my touch pro tablet that runs 7.1.2. Not to mention if it were illegal to lock phones, shops would pop up overnight to upgrade peoples dated phones to the latest and greatest.
YellowGTO said:
Samsung can add anything they want to secure the phones. Doesn't change the fact that you should be able to unlock the phone via some service. Konx is already the highest rated mass produced enterprise software (http://www.informationweek.com/mobi...eats-ios-android-gartner-finds/d/d-id/1325145), and it does just fine being rooted. It's a very expensive device that pretty much becomes garbage after a few years. On the other hand, I still use my touch pro tablet that runs 7.1.2. Not to mention if it were illegal to lock phones, shops would pop up overnight to upgrade peoples dated phones to the latest and greatest.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An analogy. You want a light weight performance oriented two seat convertible - a "true sports car." But you also want luxury appointments and an abundance of high-end optional equipment and a prestigious brand. Do you: A) buy something that meets your first set of requirements like a Mazda MX-5, or B) go to BMW forums and bash BMW and complain to fellow forum members that the Z4 isn't a "true sports car" because of its weight and price? Or worse, buy it and complain after the fact how horrible BMW is because of their product choices? It's an example of not being able to have your cake and eat it too. Mazda offers what they offer and BMW offers what they offer. You don't get to tell either to change their product strategy. You do get to vote with your wallet.
Samsung's got the most rigid Android security and seems to be ratcheting it up even further with a h/w security coprocessor in Exynos 8895. OnePlus, HTC, Huawei, Pixel/Nexus are the most liberal. It seems ludicrous to pick a Samsung phone for modding when clearly the product isn't the best choice. The other mentioned brands are a far better choice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's just the way life works.
If you believe an unlocked bootloader and rooting are a God given right since it's "your phone and you paid for it" the solutions simple. Don't buy a Samsung phone. And if you do, lamenting Samsung's security restrictions here after the fact just reinforce you shouldn't have bought the phone in the first place.
BarryH_GEG said:
An analogy. You want a light weight performance oriented two seat convertible - a "true sports car." But you also want luxury appointments and an abundance of high-end optional equipment and a prestigious brand. Do you: A) buy something that meets your first set of requirements like a Mazda MX-5, or B) go to BMW forums and bash BMW and complain to fellow forum members that the Z4 isn't a "true sports car" because of its weight and price? Or worse, buy it and complain after the fact how horrible BMW is because of their product choices? It's an example of not being able to have your cake and eat it too. Mazda offers what they offer and BMW offers what they offer. You don't get to tell either to change their product strategy. You do get to vote with your wallet.
Samsung's got the most rigid Android security and seems to be ratcheting it up even further with a h/w security coprocessor in Exynos 8895. OnePlus, HTC, Huawei, Pixel/Nexus are the most liberal. It seems ludicrous to pick a Samsung phone for modding when clearly the product isn't the best choice. The other mentioned brands are a far better choice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's just the way life works.
If you believe an unlocked bootloader and rooting are a God given right since it's "your phone and you paid for it" the solutions simple. Don't buy a Samsung phone. And if you do, lamenting Samsung's security restrictions here after the fact just reinforce you shouldn't have bought the phone in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very well said and the exact reason after my note 3 and note 5 I left for OnePlus
BarryH_GEG said:
An analogy. You want a light weight performance oriented two seat convertible - a "true sports car." But you also want luxury appointments and an abundance of high-end optional equipment and a prestigious brand. Do you: A) buy something that meets your first set of requirements like a Mazda MX-5, or B) go to BMW forums and bash BMW and complain to fellow forum members that the Z4 isn't a "true sports car" because of its weight and price? Or worse, buy it and complain after the fact how horrible BMW is because of their product choices? It's an example of not being able to have your cake and eat it too. Mazda offers what they offer and BMW offers what they offer. You don't get to tell either to change their product strategy. You do get to vote with your wallet.
Samsung's got the most rigid Android security and seems to be ratcheting it up even further with a h/w security coprocessor in Exynos 8895. OnePlus, HTC, Huawei, Pixel/Nexus are the most liberal. It seems ludicrous to pick a Samsung phone for modding when clearly the product isn't the best choice. The other mentioned brands are a far better choice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's just the way life works.
If you believe an unlocked bootloader and rooting are a God given right since it's "your phone and you paid for it" the solutions simple. Don't buy a Samsung phone. And if you do, lamenting Samsung's security restrictions here after the fact just reinforce you shouldn't have bought the phone in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The analogy is terrible. And the reason I use Samsung is for Knox. I'm not looking for root myself (at this moment). A better and simpler analogy would be you buy a miata, later on in life you want to do an LS1 swap but Mazada has welded the engine bay shut. There just isn't a reason for it. being able to change the operating system has no bearing on the security of a device. If they want to stop you from rooting Samsungs version of android fine, encrypt the disk, whatever they want. I should still be able to wipe out the partition and install something like Ubuntu phone (I know dead).
Why is the owner of a phone not allowed admin access? Is there some kind of contract or agreement or whatever between phone companies and/or mobile processor mfg's with Google to where the owner of a phone is not allowed full access? I get that if you buy a phone thru say T-Mobile with good credit and pay month to month, or get a free phone for switching to a company, or some other offer, that you are restricted, but it should be like a person who buys or builds their own computer. You are the owner, the admin, and can do whatever you want to your PC, with all the risks and voided warranties at the fault of the owner, whether it's overclocking, bad BIOS configs, viruses, etc. What makes buying a phone at full price not becoming the rightful owner of it? There's so many things you can't do (easily), like delete programs you don't want, change your resolution (not dpi), overclock (or at least fiddle with options like in BIOS), that anyone should be able to do (doesn't mean because you can, you should, but that should be up to the user's discretion). And then of course there's several phones that just aren't rootable, which doesn't seem legally right for someone who paid in full the price of a phone. Unless the price of a phone includes shared ownership of it in some small writing somewhere...