Database Info

{Everyone} Help Fight For Unlocked Bootloaders

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..

[Q] Why does asus want to break our root?

Been thinking about this for a while. It's understandable with phones. companies don't want you to tether and not pay them that extra $40 fee per month. But why does a company like asus want to break our root? What possible advantage could bring to them for not allowing us root? I just don't get it.

The only reason I can think of, people modifying their tablet then sending it in for ASUS to replace when they brick it.
It's people like these that don't take the time to ask questions and Google for answers. It's a user's responsibility to know exactly what they are getting in to when they decide to modify their device.
Beamed from my TF101 using Tapatalk HD

The question is why did Asus decide to unlock the Transformer Prime (after all the web initiatives) very soon, and is not doing it for the Transformer (TF101)?

The main reason for wanting consumers to not root their tablets is for things like watching movies from the Android market which will not work on a rooted tablet. I still don't agree with it, as long as we the consumer understand and still want our devices rooted, then companies like Asus should allow this and stop making it hard. The average person not on XDA doesn't even know what rooting is, so why make it difficult for people who like to tinker with hardware that we paid good money for.
I think HTC has it right, if you want to unlock your bootloader they let you do it on their website. Let Asus know that we want this too. Personally I won't buy a phone or tablet without being able to root it. I don't buy phones on contract and want to do what I please with them. I have been using HTC phones for many years because they have always been XDA friendly
As long as we have the ability to have nvflashable ROMs then we don't have to worry about bricking our devices so Asus shouldn't have to worry about things like that either. Cheers.

ckuke4 said:
The main reason for wanting consumers to not root their tablets is for things like watching movies from the Android market which will not work on a rooted tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely forgot about this.
In which case, we can now thank the Media MAFIAA for it.

raduque said:
I completely forgot about this.
In which case, we can now thank the Media MAFIAA for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Guess I should mention that there is a way around this but I haven't tried it as I watch market movies on my HTPC. Cheers.

Another issue has also been raised by the Win8 boot locking crapola. Namely maliciousness.
If only one entity can screw with the firmware, it is harder for e.g. a virus to screw with it, hopefully becomes almost as hard as loading home brew firmware. Imagine Moron20X installing Hot Naked Chix off PirateMarket, and it flashes hacked firmware with a keylogger onto their tablet - then have your "Support" people sweet talk Moron20X into a factory reset, and steal all his logins. Wouldn't work for a lot of people but hell, just look at how many people must fall for Nigerian e-mail scams and Western Union Screw Overs per capita if Wikipedia has such a thick article on 419 scams.
My word...I don't want to think about how many times my mother has brought me something and asked if it was 'legit', with an American address and a Canadian cheque. \o/.
Truth is though, unless these things are really owned by someone else (like say your company), users should have the choice. IMHO it's good for business to lock this stuff, as long as you can like input your SN and get an unlock for a nominal fee.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk

ckuke4 said:
The main reason for wanting consumers to not root their tablets is for things like watching movies from the Android market which will not work on a rooted tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a false statement, atleast in my recourse it's bogus. I've watched "The Christmas Story" on my ROOTED TF101 and I've let my daughter watch a couple Disney Movies.
I will say that it breaks HDMI mirroring when i try to watch something via the market on my TV, but i can watch the movie on my tablet.

Spidey01 said:
Another issue has also been raised by the Win8 boot locking crapola. Namely maliciousness.
If only one entity can screw with the firmware, it is harder for e.g. a virus to screw with it, hopefully becomes almost as hard as loading home brew firmware. Imagine Moron20X installing Hot Naked Chix off PirateMarket, and it flashes hacked firmware with a keylogger onto their tablet - then have your "Support" people sweet talk Moron20X into a factory reset, and steal all his logins. Wouldn't work for a lot of people but hell, just look at how many people must fall for Nigerian e-mail scams and Western Union Screw Overs per capita if Wikipedia has such a thick article on 419 scams.
My word...I don't want to think about how many times my mother has brought me something and asked if it was 'legit', with an American address and a Canadian cheque. \o/.
Truth is though, unless these things are really owned by someone else (like say your company), users should have the choice. IMHO it's good for business to lock this stuff, as long as you can like input your SN and get an unlock for a nominal fee.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is pretty much it, as far as I can tell. As the original post said, carriers have obvious interests (whether or not I agree with them) in maintaining control of your phone. But we want our tablets, which aren't bound to a contract with a service provider in order to function, to be more like our Windows PCs - largely under our complete control.
Which is understandable. And I feel the same way. But then, you know full well how secure Windows is[n't]. Android has a great track record so far with preventing malware and viruses from getting out into the wild in a big way, and the manufacturers probably feel that locked bootloaders and root restriction is the reason. I'm not certain I agree - Android has some good safeguards that go way beyond root - but whatever.
Ultimately, it's about user behavior. My Windows computer doesn't get viruses, because I know how to prevent that. But your average user doesn't, and when you connect a compromised computer (or tablet, or whatever) to the Internet, it endangers everyone, responsible and irresponsible alike.
Ultimately I don't agree with the top-down control imposed by Asus and the rest of the manufacturers, but from that perspective I guess it makes sense.

It's MAFIAA mostly. Asus even admitted it - saying it's because of DRM. If they can push ACTA in my country with such force our Prime Minister ignores massive demonstrations (something very uncommon in Poland) in -20 Celsius why wouldn't they push for closing up devices so they can "protect" their movies. It's because of Netflix and such - which doesn't even work outside US.

Why is Samsung acting like Apple?

Android is supposed to be open, customizable and free, vs iOS. That's why I'm making the switch (plus I couldn't stand the screen size of iPhone).
But now I realize Samsung is behaving like Apple:
- Knox highly discourages (prevents) rooting, just like Apple tries to prevent jailbreaks
- Firmware can't be downgraded, just like on iOS too
Part 1 is still acceptable under the pretext of corporate security, especially since end users generally have no issues getting warranty even with Knox tripped.
But part 2 is simply inconceivable IMO. No downgrading is just ridiculous. It's way worse than part 1 because at least users can choose to void warranty and ignore Knox, but part 2 is maintaining an iron control.

That is the really stupid bit. I have been upgrading, downgrading when I wanted to since the galaxy s days and now this not being able to downgrade really ppppppeeee me off. Didn't care about Knox and tripped it.... But...?... Let's set what's out there come September when my contract runs out
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

When I read threads on how which firmware versions are rootable (without tripping knox) and which aren't, they remind me of apple blogs posting about which iOS versions are jailbreak safe.
Can't believe I'm still gonna buy a note 3!

fterh said:
When I read threads on how which firmware versions are rootable (without tripping knox) and which aren't, they remind me of apple blogs posting about which iOS versions are jailbreak safe.
Can't believe I'm still gonna buy a note 3!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get it. The hardware is still a good value, but I'll probably look elsewhere in the future.

These companies get too big and start to dictate what the user wants instead of listening... And when they are sitting pretty on top they tend to stop developing new innovations because "They are the best" and then the item tends to stagnate with VERY little actual developement thrown in. Anything new is a kneejerk reaction to the next up and comer for king of the heap....
They will still say it is for the best of the user but in reality its because they're too damn lazy to work. Then comes the copyright everything attitudeand the litigation and more effort is spent suing others for copyright einfingement than making the latest and greatest, what was Apple"s big thing a while back, oh yeah, lets make it white....
Works well for them and most users who have a hard time working out which end to speak in but not for those who actually want to own, use and control what their device actually does....

Take a lil bit, bit by bit til theres nothing less
Sent from my SM-N9005 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app

It's not just Samsung others are going the same route, LG for instance says it got something similar to KNOX in the pipeline, HTC makes it difficult as possible to root their phones, Sony is also going to follow a similar path to Samsung & LG as they all want the corp market to buy their smartphones and feel safe, sod the general consumer that not interested in any of this.
The option in the near future if you want to tinker without tripping something or blowing an efuse is to buy a Nexus.

Its also because of the data breach that chinese and NSA are doing. They want our phones and its data to be safe. Not like modified system files with backdoors and trojans. So its for our own safety. Yes u can always change the layouts, launchers and other stuff. But changing kernel and rooting devices to use system procedures. These are just for developers and those who actually know abt stuff. Not for the common man.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app

Because Samsung need sale by millions on US like Apple but must be very Secured:
Quote from another post:
...The Knox Bootloader that is the first from a new type of bootloaders, block and not permit many things.
To understand what is the Knox and is bootloader and kernel read this:
https://www.samsungknox.com/en/overview/technical-details See also the video How to Use on it...
On the first attachment we see at left the usual Android, at right we see the Android whit the Samsung Security System Knox in white and the usual until now in blue. Whit this System people can have like two phones on one. A personal whit his own appl and a second secured to work on Enterprises and Governments and others.
The Knox Bootloader protect the secured part and not permit the flashing by Odin some files that it consider not secured like the oldest bootloaders. Then the Knox Warranty Void: 0x0 is first of all the Security System Knox secured. 0x1 is not secured.
For example I quote this from that doc/link:
Samsung KNOX offers a multi-faceted security solution rooted in the tamper-resistant device hardware, through the Linux kernel and Android operating system. The first line of defense against malicious attacks, Samsung KNOX is currently approved to run on US Department of Defense networks. (If flag 0x0, my opinion).

fterh said:
Android is supposed to be open, customizable and free, vs iOS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And there's your problem.
Android is open, customizable, and free - at source code level. However, individual implementations (such as Samsung's Touchwiz) have so such requirement to be so.
People like us, who like to hack around with our phones, are not the market that Samsung is aiming for. The vast, vast majority of Samsung Android users are never going to root their phone, manually upgrade/downgrade their firmware via Odin, or install custom ROMs. These users are *never* going to even thing about tripping Knox, let alone do anything that might trip it.
To be fair, Samsung are not alone in this - pretty much all major phone vendors are doing similar. Someone works out how to get S-OFF on the HTC One, and HTC release a patch to prevent it.
Going forward, I see a time coming where if you want to have complete control over your device, you will have to buy a developer edition.
Regards,
Dave

Really? Another thread to whine about Knox?
Sent from my SM-N9005 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app

ultramag69 said:
These companies get too big and start to dictate what the user wants instead of listening... And when they are sitting pretty on top they tend to stop developing new innovations because "They are the best" and then the item tends to stagnate with VERY little actual developement thrown in. Anything new is a kneejerk reaction to the next up and comer for king of the heap....
They will still say it is for the best of the user but in reality its because they're too damn lazy to work. Then comes the copyright everything attitudeand the litigation and more effort is spent suing others for copyright einfingement than making the latest and greatest, what was Apple"s big thing a while back, oh yeah, lets make it white....
Works well for them and most users who have a hard time working out which end to speak in but not for those who actually want to own, use and control what their device actually does....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This post basically nails all the reasons in one fell swoop..

And then they are forcing to use original accessories which is really really stupid of Samsung.

Question: Why is Samsung acting like Apple?
Answer: Because Apple is the most successful company in the world.
Do you really need another reason?

aydc said:
Question: Why is Samsung acting like Apple?
Answer: Because Apple is the most successful company in the world.
Do you really need another reason?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
C'mon!!
OK. I've had rooted and hacked everyphohe I've had.. Since Nokia monocromatic days, Sony Ericsson devices and now android... I've used almost every custom ROM.. Applied hundreds of modifications, etc, etc... Trust me. Its funny how ppl complain about software and this Knox thing... Android continues to be on top of iOS for many many reasons... Many many reasons!!
I personally like to root .. Of course but with power comes disorder.. Yes maybe cosmetic custom is one of the reasons for rooting..and its fun. But as it comes with plenty of features so it comes with problems never experienced on stock.. Like freezes, restarts,etc, etc.. U know what am talking about.. Most of us have chosen the Gnote 3 for its innumerable capacities over almost every device on the market. It is a beast. No doubt. For me I haven't seen yet any modification or feature that make me wanna root my note.. It is a beast as it is now. Am not running KK.. Uh uh.. I'll wait for a more completed version... I have more than 15 years using cellphones and customizing them.. And now it seems that companies are getting to know what customers need in their devices .. That's why rooting will no longer be necessary.. Why don't you sit and think about this? I've root my Sgs2 and could have the multi window feature when it came out.. And the list goes and goes.. Arent you able to see we are going to another place now with stock phones?? Actually CM will have its on device sponsored by Google itself !!! See for example the multiple features of the moto x ... It is like R2D2 haha.. Personally I'm happy with the nowadays devices..let s see what's next...
Sent from my SM-N9005 using xda app-developers app

At least Samsung will not shut down your phone and force update, like Crapple does, on Samsung at least you can disable updates. And blame other users as well for this lockdowns: how many people brick their phones when modding and then at least try to claim warranty repairs or exchange? I don't have to look far, my good friend rooted his Note3 and this made his Gear stop working. Couldn't fix it, so he took it to service center and strangely enough they did fix it for free (he may have unrooted first, I don't know), by bringing all to stock and he is a hacker, perfectly capable of figuring it out, just didn't want to bother I guess. And yes, because Crapple is so successful, many companies will follow suit, so blame all Crapple users as well. If Crapple was a total failure, no one would imitate them.

pete4k said:
At least Samsung will not shut down your phone and force update, like Crapple does, on Samsung at least you can disable updates. And blame other users as well for this lockdowns: how many people brick their phones when modding and then at least try to claim warranty repairs or exchange? I don't have to look far, my good friend rooted his Note3 and this made his Gear stop working. Couldn't fix it, so he took it to service center and strangely enough they did fix it for free (he may have unrooted first, I don't know), by bringing all to stock and he is a hacker, perfectly capable of figuring it out, just didn't want to bother I guess. And yes, because Crapple is so successful, many companies will follow suit, so blame all Crapple users as well. If Crapple was a total failure, no one would imitate them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Soon change in a few years. You'll see Samsung become more and more like Apple in time.

Samsung used to be just another Korean electronics company, like what LG is today. Then they started copying Apple. The more they copied Apple, the more successful they became. It's this simple. Believe it. If you do what successful people do, you become successful. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't work.

aydc said:
Samsung used to be just another Korean electronics company, like what LG is today. Then they started copying Apple. The more they copied Apple, the more successful they became. It's this simple. Believe it. If you do what successful people do, you become successful. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just like the sales of apple is now falling I believe it will also happen to samsung.
Another thing not related to your comment since they've stopped allot people from rooting and developing due to the warranty issues. Development is Damn slow now. Like they did with gokhanmoral (think thats how you spell it all credits to him) with the s2 they had cherry picked from his kernel tree to implement into the stock to make stock run even smoother. Now there's only really one kernel in development for the international model compared to what previous phones had where there were quite a range.
What's the point of having really high end specs if you can't really exploit them? and sticking to something which much lower and play 'safe'.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using xda app-developers app

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit...of ROOT!!

Perhaps upon reading that, you call to mind Thomas Jefferson pulling out his Android to thwart impeding forces. I actually like that idea, but I know that the time in which John Locke wrote the contributing phrase was much different than today. It was a time of change and also a time when people realized their full potential to make a difference. In the spirit of our Founding Fathers, and in an exercise of my own Personal Liberties, I have started a petition to require cell phone carriers to allow bootloader unlock on any Android device that is not under contract or subsidy. Many of you will know immediately what this means, and the exponential benefits of such a law. Many of you will flip to the next activity complacently believing this does not affect you. If you do not understand, I wish to enlighten you as to how this affects each and every Android user in the world. Signing the petition takes only a few moments of your time and adds to the greater good of our technology and innovation as a Nation.
So what exactly does this “Bootloader Unlock” thing mean?
Well, that is a great question. Most simply put, according to Motorla’s website, “bootloader is a little bit of code that tells your device's operating system how to boot up”. That does not mean much to the average user, I am sure. What it means in my own words is it is a piece of code that dictates what I can and cannot do, in terms of software modification, to my own personal Android device. On my wireless provider whom I will call Big Red, their requirement is that OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers, or simply phone makers) lock this bit of code to prevent modification by the end-user or customer. I am certain, to those that do not wish to modify their devices, this sounds like a good fail-safe to avoid breaking their devices. I am also certain that to those like myself, those who have the experience and knowledge to do things like flash custom firmware or software and modify our devices to suit our own personal taste and needs, this is a huge roadblock and an impediment on what we can do with our own personal property and how it can be improved. In order to modify system files as the user sees fit, a thing called Root is required. Root is, most simply privileged access to a phones file system. A locked bootloader means that in order to gain “Root” access, a security exploit must be found and exploited in order to modify system files. These exploits are literally holes that must be (and typically are) patched in software updates sent out by the service providers or manufacturers to protect the end-user. While the efforts of the security experts are always going to be required to keep us safe and updated, I personally do not want to rely on someone to hack the software so it can be modified. This should be an inherent ability of any user who does not have a subsidy or contract obligation. I also feel that any device that can be updated by the user allows the people who develop for Android to Innovate and push our technology farther forward. When manufacturers are required to lock down a device, ultimately, the user is the one who loses. My first Android device, the Droid 1 or A855 ran an under-volted overclocked kernel (simply another piece of code that tells a device how to boot and how to run its processor among other things) that ran 1.7ghz on it’s ~600mhz processor. I used that phone at least twice as long as I would have if it hadn’t been bootloader unlocked. Also, on the note of the OG Droid, I can say that this was the phone that helped Verizon to compete with the Iphone, bolstering the customer base and creating mass knowledge of the Andoid platform. This was done with a bootloader-unlocked device. It seems that once the market was realized, bootloader locking became the normative. The Droid line has been bootloader-locked ever since. There are several examples of the same hardware being sold, under different names, with the bootloader-unlockable right out of the box. The most recent example of this is the Motorola xt1250, or Moto Maxx (US CDMA). The international version of the same phone, the xt1225 is also bootloader-unlockable. All three are known as the Quark. They are identical in hardware aside from exteriors. Big Red required their version to have the bootloader locked. There is no way to have it unlocked for now.
So Why Would I Want to Sign This Petition?
Honestly, you may not care about Android at all. You could conceivably have never been interested, and care less. However, the technology available to you today is available because of innovations and advancements that have been made across a wide technological array of development. Android is no different. Love that Halo or Heads Up inspired feature ____ manufacturer just put on your new phone? People who develop are to be thanked. The possibilities are endless for what can be done and applied across many platforms. The future of mobile technology can be greatly advanced by creating open access for all who are inclined.
Catharsis
Okay, I admit it. It is really, really unlikely our politicians actually act upon this petition, even if 100,000 signatures are reached. As much as I like to think our law should “fix” things that are wrong, I can agree with one of my favorite developers from back in the day, @adrenalyne, when he said [government typically does not, and should not interfere with private business.] I can agree with that on the same grounds by which I feel we should be granted bootloader unlock on…if and only, if, no one’s rights are infringed upon. I feel it is all of our right to do what we please with our own personal property. There was a great analogy given on XDA Developers forum in the bounty thread where this all started by @Wynnded In essence, it said the carrier provides the highway, the OEM provides the device, but it is the carrier’s highway, so if the carrier requires the OEM to lock it down so be it. Personally, I feel that if the carrier has a highway, it is a toll-road, as I pay for my service. I purchase my vehicle outright, so if I want to modify it, and I pay for my vehicle, making no obligation to said toll operator, it is not within their range of rights to tell me I cannot modify my vehicle in the way I see fit. Thank you for your time. –kitcostantino @ medicbeard on twitter #unlockthedroids
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...e-not-subsized-or-attatched-contract/QfTmsspy
Original thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/dro...unlock-bootloader-root-turbo-t2927958/page115
Sources:
https://motorola-global-portal.custhelp.com/app/standalone/bootloader/unlock-your-device-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooting_(Android_OS)
I ask for no donations, nor anything else. Simply share this if you feel so compelled. Really, it hurts nothing even if you don’t.
#unlockthedroids

Petition to Verizon/FCC to unlock all verizon phone bootloaders that use Block C

Reading around I've found some passing mention of Block C, how bootloaders should be unlocked on it and such because of Open Use terms set by google. I created a petition here: https://www.change.org/p/federal-co...-circumventing-security-ver?just_created=true that although it may not relate completely to XDA in every sense, needs support I feel. An XDA article on the topic may be found here for more information on the subject: http://www.xda-developers.com/it-is-illegal-for-verizon-to-lock-some-bootloaders/
Thanks in advance for any support, hopefully we can work around having to hack into the thing(s) and just get what we should've gotten all along.
Cheers :fingers-crossed:

Would be nice if we could get it unlocked. Not like they are loosing money off these phones now since they are so old by today's ever so speedy tech market.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Question: would a bootloader be considered a "user application" in the sense that an application would be software? Or as firmware does it not extend to that?
BTW, here is a copy of my FCC complaint and text within. If anyone who is reading this has experience in the field and any pointers or arguments I could make that would be great:
For a great majority of phones currently sold by Verizon, many of which utilize Block C of the 700Mhz spectrum, the bootloader is locked. The original terms of Open Access allows for two exceptions only, the second being that the device must comply with other regulations, and the first that limitations may be made for "management or protection of the licensee's network." Locked bootloaders are in violation of Open Access, and thus the response from Verizon is that the allowance of such modification could cause breach in security, and thus such restrictions are necessary for that management. The counterargument to this is in part that phones from outside the network, sold by other manufacturers, as well as some sold through Verizon itself by certain manufacturers do not have any such restrictions. This lack in continuity wholly breaches any argument that security of the network could by improved by locking those devices in such a way that the original terms outweigh those exceptions.
Next comment by me:
Upon receiving reply from the subject of complaint, I have not thusfar been given what I would deem any substantial evidence that it is 1) a method of securing the licensee's network that is reasonable or consistently applied in any effective manner 2) not placing substantial burden on the customer relative to that originally applied by the OEM and 3) that it does not restrict the ability of any consumer to install applications (software, by nature including the operating system and related components) excluding for reasonable network management. This final point is troubling as of yet for the very reason that no specific examples or evidence was given to prove that it is necessary or that any plausible abuse or breach in security of the network may be exclusively performed by an end user with only a device with an unrestricted base firmware
And my last comment as of yet:
Thusfar, I have not yet received any written transcription, summary, or identifiable confirmation of receipt by the fcc from Verizon of the contact over phone that I have had with Verizon over this matter. I still find no reasonable objection to, or exception from, the contents of paragraph 222 and footnote 500 of FCC-07-132A1 that would allow for the restriction placed on these devices. Reasonable network management, as quoted as an exception by Verizon, has not been backed up or supported by any example or feasible hypothetical that a locked bootloader provides, in a direct manner, any noticeable or even quantifiably existent protection to the integrity of the carriers system over that of a phone without the restriction.

dreamwave said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon isn't going to do anything because you're in the minority. Locked bootloaders appeal to corporate/military for the security of Exchange. Bootloaders are not end user software, it is firmware, and firmware that isn't touched often at best. If you need proof of how locked bootloaders make a device more secure... all of XDA is your example. Anything that allows custom code to be flashed is a security risk.
If you took the time to look at other threads ranging from the S3, Note 4, etc, you'll learn that the S5 isn't the only one. Also, the reason the Devs don't work on it is because a failed bootloader exploit bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will revive it.
The thing with root is its just injecting things inton a firmware to see if it will take. Any failure just means a stock rom needs to be flashed. While I can't stand the locked bootloader issue either, it's been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as people asking for root for OE1 and OG5 in basically every thread.

Spartan117H3 said:
Verizon isn't going to do anything because you're in the minority. Locked bootloaders appeal to corporate/military for the security of Exchange. Bootloaders are not end user software, it is firmware, and firmware that isn't touched often at best. If you need proof of how locked bootloaders make a device more secure... all of XDA is your example. Anything that allows custom code to be flashed is a security risk.
If you took the time to look at other threads ranging from the S3, Note 4, etc, you'll learn that the S5 isn't the only one. Also, the reason the Devs don't work on it is because a failed bootloader exploit bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will revive it.
The thing with root is its just injecting things inton a firmware to see if it will take. Any failure just means a stock rom needs to be flashed. While I can't stand the locked bootloader issue either, it's been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as people asking for root for OE1 and OG5 in basically every thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The burden of proof is on them (as per the regulations), that they must prove that any restriction they make specifically allows for their network (not the phone) to be more secure. They need to prove (even if I am a minority complainee) that it falls under reasonable network management. I know that many parts have been harped on to no end, but what I'm arguing here seems not to have been argued in this way before. Many of the original complainees have not offered much beyond simply touting "open access", no real legal backing. Also, about the minority thing: the FCC has internal courts that are there to deal with complaints that don't necessarily affect a majority. They work like most other courts in that they decide what is right, not who has more money. I'm glad I'm dealing with the FCC now as in times past they were a bit more unresponsive to complaints by many people but now seem to be taking a more proactive approach to most everything.

Also, a major distinction in footnote 502 vs 500:
502: We also note that wireless service providers may continue to use their choice of operating systems, and are not
required to modify their network infrastructure or device-level operating systems to accommodate particular devices
or applications. Device manufacturers and applications developers are free to design their equipment and
applications to work with providers’ network infrastructure and operating systems, and must be given the applicable
parameters as part of the standards provided to third parties.
500: We note that the Copyright Office has granted a three-year exemption to the anti-circumvention provisions of
Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for “computer programs in the form of firmware that enable
wireless telephone handsets to connect to wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is
accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.” It found
that software locks on mobile handsets adversely affect the ability of consumers to make non-infringing use of the
software in those handsets. 17 Fed. Reg. 68472 (Nov. 27, 2006). We also note that a court appeal of the exemption
ruling is ongoing.
1st point: a distinction between the operating system, and "firmware" as a "program", and by extension an "application"...but not necessary to argue as it, within 500, notes that "software locks on mobile handsets adversely affect the ability of consumers...handsets," and although this exception may have expired the original text acts as a type of precedent that establishes 1. that firmware is independent from the operating system and 2. that its restriction does not conform to "open access" or constitute "reasonable network management"

veedubsky said:
Would be nice if we could get it unlocked. Not like they are loosing money off these phones now since they are so old by today's ever so speedy tech market.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the main reason they do it is because some people who brick their phones doing stuff they can't apply the warrantee to and still call tech support trying to get help

dreamwave said:
the main reason they do it is because some people who brick their phones doing stuff they can't apply the warrantee to and still call tech support trying to get help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea well they could always have a sign here clause that will relinquish them from any liability then unlock your phone.

veedubsky said:
Yea well they could always have a sign here clause that will relinquish them from any liability then unlock your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's my point but they wouldn't listen in the original chat with them on the phone so...oh well

dreamwave said:
That's my point but they wouldn't listen in the original chat with them on the phone so...oh well
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also with all the help here and rescue resources (also knowing that there is that SLIGHT chance to completely brick your phone) you can almost reverse anything... Except some people freak out and first thing they do is call VZW

dreamwave said:
The burden of proof is on them (as per the regulations), that they must prove that any restriction they make specifically allows for their network (not the phone) to be more secure. They need to prove (even if I am a minority complainee) that it falls under reasonable network management. I know that many parts have been harped on to no end, but what I'm arguing here seems not to have been argued in this way before. Many of the original complainees have not offered much beyond simply touting "open access", no real legal backing. Also, about the minority thing: the FCC has internal courts that are there to deal with complaints that don't necessarily affect a majority. They work like most other courts in that they decide what is right, not who has more money. I'm glad I'm dealing with the FCC now as in times past they were a bit more unresponsive to complaints by many people but now seem to be taking a more proactive approach to most everything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.

Spartan117H3 said:
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unsigned code is already possible to run in just installing an application not from the play store. To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one. Also, the petition was only really there to raise awareness about the issue to the public. The FCC is the only place I'm really able to do much against verizon.

Spartan117H3 said:
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And even if they make it closed source, forbidding the modification of the phone would be the subject of the exact terms of complaint that I've outlined

dreamwave said:
Unsigned code is already possible to run in just installing an application not from the play store. To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one. Also, the petition was only really there to raise awareness about the issue to the public. The FCC is the only place I'm really able to do much against verizon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That app is sandboxed within the android os, meaning the app is limited by whatever the OS allows it to do. To be able to replace the firmware on the phone is a huge difference. I'm sure the 18k bounty made more headlines than this thread did, considering it was for both AT&T and Verizon, and that many different news outlets reposted it. It doesn't matter if many people know about it, because most people don't care if it doesn't involve them. This type of stuff has been done by other companies as well. Notable examples:
UEFI - Has to be signed before it can boot before windows 8/8.1 (but you can request to have things reviewed and signed, Ubuntu did this).
Intel - they locked down their processors and now sell/mark up K versions to enthusiasts who want to overclock.
dreamwave said:
And even if they make it closed source, forbidding the modification of the phone would be the subject of the exact terms of complaint that I've outlined
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But then there's this:
dreamwave said:
To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have an unlocked bootloader, couldn't you run whatever you wanted on their network which would be the reason of making it closed source/addressing the quote above this quote? I'm not quite understanding this.

Spartan117H3 said:
That app is sandboxed within the android os, meaning the app is limited by whatever the OS allows it to do. To be able to replace the firmware on the phone is a huge difference. I'm sure the 18k bounty made more headlines than this thread did, considering it was for both AT&T and Verizon, and that many different news outlets reposted it. It doesn't matter if many people know about it, because most people don't care if it doesn't involve them. This type of stuff has been done by other companies as well. Notable examples:
UEFI - Has to be signed before it can boot before windows 8/8.1 (but you can request to have things reviewed and signed, Ubuntu did this).
Intel - they locked down their processors and now sell/mark up K versions to enthusiasts who want to overclock.
But then there's this:
If you have an unlocked bootloader, couldn't you run whatever you wanted on their network which would be the reason of making it closed source/addressing the quote above this quote? I'm not quite understanding this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what I'm disputing is the direct security impact to their network an unlocked bootloader poses compared to a locked one. If it is possible to run the same code on a locked bootloader that would post a direct threat to the integrity of their network then it doesn't constitute reasonable network management.

dreamwave said:
what I'm disputing is the direct security impact to their network an unlocked bootloader poses compared to a locked one. If it is possible to run the same code on a locked bootloader that would post a direct threat to the integrity of their network then it doesn't constitute reasonable network management.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But it's not. Unlocked bootloader allows much more freedom/allows you to run code that you can't on a locked one.

Spartan117H3 said:
But it's not. Unlocked bootloader allows much more freedom/allows you to run code that you can't on a locked one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Code that can directly impact the security of their network infrastructure, not just your phone?

dreamwave said:
Code that can directly impact the security of their network infrastructure, not just your phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the case of Samsung phones, it would undermine the security of at minimum the device that connects to the Exchange service. To the extent, I have no idea, I'm just here speculating/learning, but I thought that was one of the reasons they gave for locking it down.

Spartan117H3 said:
In the case of Samsung phones, it would undermine the security of at minimum the device that connects to the Exchange service. To the extent, I have no idea, I'm just here speculating/learning, but I thought that was one of the reasons they gave for locking it down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thing is that they can only restrict devices like that if it has any impact on their network infrastructure, if they can't prove it does they can't really do anything about it

dreamwave said:
The thing is that they can only restrict devices like that if it has any impact on their network infrastructure, if they can't prove it does they can't really do anything about it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Couldn't they claim something as simple as, a keylogger on a phone from a corporate/military person which would impact Exchange? Dunno. But that could be done with root. Bootloader makes it possible to root phones that aren't usually rootable though.