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..
As most of you would know, we have learned quite a bit about Defy bootloader during the last week.
We always thought that Motorola don't have a method to unlock production defys (defys shipped to end users). Well we have sufficient information now to prove that Motorola have a method, and that it converts production defys to engineering defys (Phones used by Motorola engineers to make ROMs and other stuff)
This is actually better than a simple unlocked boot-loader because eng defys have unlimited applications (because we have direct access to MOBO/CPU) like overclocking gpu, installing other OS like Ubuntu, Debian, WP7 etc. into NAND and a lot more.
So the problem here is that the tools required for ENG switch is only available to Motorola employees. Till now we have no further information on it. The tools are TI OMAP BOARD CONFIGURATION TOOL and a 16MB .bin file. Other significance of this method is that it might also unlock other phones with OMAP(3xxx/xxxx?) board. Also this method seems to be very stable.
So the good news is that this software is available for most Motorola repair centers. That means it would be easier to get a leak. Of course the highly paid Motorola engineers with 6digit paycheck wont leak it but we should consider low level repair executives (they already leak sbfs and RSDlite).
So my suggestion is we start a bounty thread in XDA to tempt them.
If you have a solution and if you are concerned about anonymity, please PM me.
PS : There are lots of bounty threads in xda.
Hi,
Setting a Bounty would be cool, but is legal ?
Cause it is not like "I pay you a lot of money if you steal this software for me"
the|gamer said:
Hi,
Setting a Bounty would be cool, but is legal ?
Cause it is not like "I pay you a lot of money if you steal this software for me"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hmm. It depend's on which country you are from.
I'm quite on it. Minimum/maximum fee could be set (like US$2 min and 20 bucks max, or anything like this). And someone with access to Motorola's employees (I think the user racca works on a Moto distributor, but I'm not sure of it, I think he mentioned it in some thread a few months ago) could rush and "bribe" them. If people could be a bit more clear about which kind of employees should have access to this software, I could try and convince one of them (you know, people here in Brazil aren't that much into honesty, but are a lot into money) about heading us a leak from TI's software. I'll have to take my phone to MOTOAssist soon ("menu" and "back" keys' backlights are weaker than normal), so I'd have at least an actual reason to talk to an assist technician (assuming they have access to the board configuration tool).
Yet, since I'm no hacker (yet, I'm planning on getting a Nook Color - which community here in XDA seems to provide all you need to start your own ROM - and starting messing around with it) nor coder (know only a little about C programming), I would not try and mess around with TI's software, but only upload it somewhere and give you guys a link for it.
K3n bH1mur4 said:
I'm quite on it. Minimum/maximum fee could be set (like US$2 min and 20 bucks max, or anything like this).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We could even promote it with ads. The best way would be to set up our on website, maybe in Brazil(or with some webhost who would like to host this) where you could bribe your way out and then promote it with ads. There is a remote chance that XDA might not approve a bounty thread here (of illegal implications), but we could publish the website here and all other major forums (chinese forums as well).
royale1223 said:
We could even promote it with ads. The best way would be to set up our on website, maybe in Brazil(or with some webhost who would like to host this) where you could bribe your way out and then promote it with ads. There is a remote chance that XDA might not approve a bounty thread here (of illegal implications), but we could publish the website here and all other major forums (chinese forums as well).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dunno, since it's illegal, it may not be the best option to promote it. Obviously, it's still not immoral, but we all know that morality and law often do not converge, so it may be better to go rogue, talking in private with motoassist technicians and stuff like that, because, even if we're just fighting for our rights, we're still using non-legal ways, and risking to be sued for it.
I don't think promoting a website is illegal. What's illegal is hosting an illegal one.
Promoting a website who promises cash for employees of a corporation who leak internal software used by that corp. might be considered illegal in most places. Fortunately (or not, I'll explain why), we have jurisprudence to embase of: in september 1st, last year, a judge here in Brazil condemned Moto to update a customer's Dext/CLIQ to Android 2.1 (Moto did not provide this update here in Brazil, even though it did in many countries) without voiding the warranty.
I know it's just one case, in just one country, and updating an android version is way different than providing unlocked bootloaders (or the tools for users to do so). And, yes, I agree with placing a bounty at the tool. Yet, if we get caught, Moto can still argue that we had other ways to pursue our rights, and we should have used the justice system to do so, if we believed we were that right. Yet, they're a multimillion-worthy company (even bigger after being purchased by Google), and we're a bunch of broke users, at most devs making a couple thousand dollars, and would have little chance against their lawyers. Last, but not least, employers who help us may get caught and fired because of us, and I sincerely want nobody (ok, maybe a few of the highest executives) to get fired just for me to get an unlocked BL.
So, my point is: let's make this a stealth action. Get a reason for your phone to be taken to Motoassist (no intentional bricking, please! You must flash an official SBF before taking it there! - at least if your phone is still under warranty), get to talk with one of their technicians, and mention - indifferently - that some guys are giving alway big money for any Moto employee who leaks that TI OMAP software. Something like this: "hey, did you hear that crazy devs at this dev forum are paying the first moto technician to hand them some sort of software? Something OMAP-related, I don't know for sure. All I know is that the reward is some nice cash."
When the word spread, we could have an unlocked bootloader within a month.
Yet, we got a single issue to deal: how to ensure the person who gives us the SW first will actually receive the cash? I've seen a few bounties here before, but them all were settled by XDA devs (so the bounty keeper could just donate the sum to that dev), never saw something like paying "outsiders".
One of my friends (Defy+ user) has a contact with a Motorola service guy. He says that that guy knows everything about Motorola software and he's with us because he himself uses custom ROMs and controls an entire service center. He's ready to take my device under warranty though it's rooted along every single hack/MOD for Defy installed
Will try contacting him
And let's post this in the forums of all other locked Motorola devices with OMAP 3xxx chips.
Sent from my MB525 using XDA App
swapnil360 said:
One of my friends (Defy+ user) has a contact with a Motorola service guy. He says that that guy knows everything about Motorola software and he's with us because he himself uses custom ROMs and controls an entire service center. He's ready to take my device under warranty though it's rooted along every single hack/MOD for Defy installed
Will try contacting him
And let's post this in the forums of all other locked Motorola devices with OMAP 3xxx chips.
Sent from my MB525 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Talk with this guy. If he has access to a copy of TI's SW, and handle it to us, I'm pretty sure we could him get a nice reward. Not as high as if putting a bounty, but definitely enough to make the effort worth it.
I mean, supposing that this is actually gonna help unlock EVERY OMAP 3 (and possibly all OMAP-based phones) out there, and that this way the process is reversible (at least to me, it looks like no eFuse is being blown there, you know, assistance technicians can't just blow eFuses like that - taking the phone to the assistance under warranty shouldn't void it, and that's what a blown eFuse would do), loads of people would help. Imagine a single dollar from every OMAP 3 XDA user (take a look here for an INCOMPLETE list of OMAP 3 devices with ~30 ANDROID ONLY phones/tablets), that would make a lot of money.
this is good....and i think it will be best to not mention the location,identities,or any hint of similarities of the perosn source once you guys get contacts & manifests from that guy(source). so as not to compromise his profession.
he could be fired & worse can be sued by leaking private details.
best discuss it in private,after getting in touch w/ him...
just a tought of CAUTION...
hailmary said:
this is good....and i think it will be best to not mention the location,identities,or any hint of similarities of the perosn source once you guys get contacts & manifests from that guy(source). so as not to compromise his profession.
he could be fired & worse can be sued by leaking private details.
best discuss it in private,after getting in touch w/ him...
just a tought of CAUTION...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah we would ensure him that.
I'll help u out....juzz tell me what to get from moto officials
hemil said:
I'll help u out....juzz tell me what to get from moto officials
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
do u know motorola mobility service center in mbai?
we only hav private shops with motos certificate...
i dont think they can help...
all they say is we'll send it to factory(?)
Sent from my MB525 using xda premium
@hemil Please pm me.
hemil said:
I'll help u out....juzz tell me what to get from moto officials
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey buddy... just wait for my call today...
Sent from my MB525 using XDA App
Putting up an ads offering money for violation the law may be a bit problematic. No website will be excited to host it. Another issue is that in the end someone will have to actually post it, someone in particular. And that one person will be in danger of being a subject of interest of various law enforcement agencies. You know, at the end of the day they always want someone to put the responsibility on, the culprit, a scapegoat. So you make heat and you put some particular person into it even before there is any result.
I would prefer to focus more on personal face to face private communications with the service guys. It's harder to prove and if something goes wrong (the guy records it etc.) our guy can always say he was just kidding, bullshitting, bigmouthing.
Anyway, if you are thinking about this seriously, here are few remarks.
don't offer the particular sum, it's not tactical; not even here should be mentioned any particular number; instead, let the service guy ask his price
if the first contact with a potential source is established, ask first for a proof; specify what the proof is supposed to be (a screenshot? a video recording of the software in action?)
figure out a way how to actually collect the money; people are willing to donate but they will not donate to anyone, only to someone trustworthy (but Epsylon will surely want to have nothing to do with everything even remotely questionable, let alone illegal); the "collector" will be under the lights, he may get attention of people we don't want to deal with
who actually will be allowed to donate? anyone? how to avoid an agent to donate and then simply track where the money is going?
figure out a way how to actually make a safe and smooth deal (money <-> software); will it be in person or electronically? how to verify we are given what we paid for? classical problem: no one of both parties is willing to make his move first, but we can't give away the money for a software we would start verifying not until the money is gone
figure out how to avoid being robbed (fake offers from people who would want to grab the money and run away) as well as being caught (fake offers from the dummy guy - LE agent); in both cases the correct proof might be given, though, but the intentions are wrong
For the particular mechanics of the exchange in person, one of numerous possible ways may go like this:
our guy comes with an intentionally bricked Defy repairable only with the software in question together with the ordinary USB cable (or without, if special USB cable is needed; in that case the cable must be part of the deal), and with an empty flash drive recognizable at the first sight; no money on him
our guy passes the flash drive and the Defy (and the USB cable, if no special cable is needed) to the "source" and watches closely
the source copies the software onto the flash drive, runs the software from the flash drive, connects the Defy via the cable provided and actually unbricks the phone (this must be more elaborated on; what if the software uses some libraries from the windows directories etc. which are not copied onto the flash drive? he may or may not have the installer, but just copying the installer isn't enough, he would have to copy the installer on the flash drive, then run the installer from it and install it back onto the flash drive and run it from there)
our guy gets the phone (and the cable) back, the source unplugs the flash drive and keeps it for now, our guy watches the flash drive is not connected to anything from now on
now the software is copied onto the flash drive and verified it's working, thus ordinary hand-to-hand exchange may proceed; our guy didn't bring the money to avoid being robbed, they both now may go grab the money or our guy may call his buddy with the money etc. (also needs to be heavily elaborated on)
Sensitive parts must be detailed in-depth, I am just indicating the outline, one of many possible. Still it's very far from perfect.
As you can see it's not that easy and there are many potential points of failure so this action may never really come to the practical realization.
What about a little bit different or alternative ways? Are there any? It would be useful to ask Epsylon what he would actually wish for the most - had he been able to wish for anything.
isn't it illegal to post copyrighted stuff and also its against forum rules..
i mean that if someone gets his hand on that super tool, then how can he shares it with us???
rishi2100 said:
isn't it illegal to post copyrighted stuff and also its against forum rules..
i mean that if someone gets his hand on that super tool, then how can he shares it with us???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
huh !! think about moto when they actually ditch us with promises ? whats wrong if what we are screaming for last 1 year . and didnt get any updates ? huh think about tht before u speak about illegal stuffs . if moto is doing all sought of ways to keep us away from our rights . what we do undercover to get us right can no way be questioned when we have told thousands of times that we need updates .
more over the authority can question us only and only when they are themselves self guilt free .... but instead they are pretending to be saint sitting behind the curtains and doing all sought of locking stuff to deprive us of our rights
@jhonsmithx Let's not get ahead of ourselves. First of all lets concentrate on getting the source. Also I urge users to use a bit of social engineering to do that(using fb/g ). We'll put together a plan according to the situation after that. Also note that this is a pretty long shot. We might not get a source after all.
rishi2100 said:
isn't it illegal to post copyrighted stuff and also its against forum rules..
i mean that if someone gets his hand on that super tool, then how can he shares it with us???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I could think of atleast 10 ways to share anonymously. Though I wont be posting them here.
I've recently acquired a HTC One X, and having had a desire which was rooted from the first moment, and also s-off some time later thanks to revolutionary, I imagined development would be just as simple.
While there is (and was even before production devices were available) a root method for the One-X it requires unlocking a bootloader. A bootloader which then leaves a (so far) indelible electronic mark as to it's having been opened.
HTC promised to unlock bootloaders, yet what they've done is created a contract between a rooter and themselves, whereby the process voids your warranty.
Root access to your phone voids your warranty.
There are many threads on this already so I'm not looking to discuss it here, what does intrigue is that a whole bunch of other manufacturers have essentially gone the same route.
Asus have an encrypted system, Barnes and Noble tablet required a hardware hack to enter a recovery (APX) mode and Motorola have also announced the coming availability of a development device where you trade your warranty for administrative access to a device you own.
I'm typing this post from a Toshiba laptop, whose bios I have never tampered with, but with a W7 install, and VM installs of Windows XP, Ubuntu, Centos x64 and various other OS's.
If I desired I could install any of these OS's and expect to have availability for the drivers for the device, allowing me to perform whatever functions I choose. It's analogy that has been drawn time and again, but none of these actions would void my warranty.
It appears that "open source" is being more loosely applied and undermined.
I don't want to tamper with HTC's "Sense" interface, I don't want to overclock my Asus Transformer.
For years Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, eventually falling foul of anti-trust law in the US and competition laws in the EU. Phones should be subject to to the same initiatives.
It appears all the manufacturers are going the same route, following the same trend of locked and encrypted bootloaders.
There's more than one launcher, just as there's more than one web browser. If I wish to stop Touchwiz from running and install a different interface from the market, I should not have to take risks with the health of my device in order to perform a simple administrative function.
Each of us have almost certainly been asked by our peers what phone they should buy. We influence the market because we understand the technical sides of the devices a little more than the average man in the street. I'm losing patience with certain manufacturers and I'll not be recommending their devices to anyone again.
It's essential for the health and long term success of the Android OS that manufacturers cease penalising the development community. It's a feedback loop where we add value to their devices, even if it's simply by recommending them.
We're being cut out of the loop, as the Android devices become more locked down and the users more locked out the entire Android idea starts to eat itself.
+1 couldn't say it better
Agree with your post.
To me it seems like a cheap trick to rip us of the warranty fast & easy.
On the other hand unlocking a bootloader also means changing the kernel most likely. By changing the kernel many people oc their cpus to extreme levels.
Why shall the company take responsibility for those damages?
Rooting on the other hand should not void the warranty in my opinion.
There are easier ways to stop overclocking or at least limit the effects of overclocking.
It's something the phone providers trot out but there is no basis to the argument.
I agree with you
Agree wid ur post
Sent from my MB865 using xda premium
+1 totally agree
While I agree to this, almost anyone who roots is going to use a custom ROM. By rooting, you're telling them that it's fine, you do not need their warranty. You will rely on outside, free help if something goes wrong, because let's face it, they aren't building these things for us to root them.
Generally PCs are far less brickable, too. PCs are more modular in nature. There is not a single phone or tablet, of any brand, that is at all modular.
And anyway, from what I've read of many warranties for a PC, adding new hardware voids the warranty as well. Or at least disables it for the duration you use that new hardware inside of it.
Just think of it that way. A bricked PC is so much easier to fix than a bricked phone or tablet. In this way, if something does go wrong by something they aren't letting you do willynilly, or letting the general, far-less-techy normal end user, they're covering their own ass.
It'd be nice if they didn't hide that though.
We laugh at iPhone users that Apple limit what they can do with their devices
I think the gap between us get narrower each day.
Another terrible reply.
Phones are difficult to recover because they are made that way.
I've crashed and messed up a laptop install, but I was able to reach for a linux cd (or windows), re-install the software on to the drive (because the system partition wasn't totally locked down) and then install the drivers required because they were made available.
Your analogy is simply regurgitating the argument of companies like HTC and Asus who are prepared to sell you the hardware, just so long as you don't want to do anything with it other than what they prescribe.
The warranty debate is not for here, simply their decisions to lock down YOUR hardware will kill development.
At some point Google will have to step in and do something about the situation. Start taking control of what has the potential to be a wonderful product.
abo.saud said:
We laugh at iPhone users that Apple limit what they can do with their devices
I think the gap between us get narrower each day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
TWO BIG thumbs up for abo, LOL
Yeap, when all Android devices got locked up, Android fanboys will cry out loud.
Being using so-called open-source but they (manuf.) hancuff dev. and push us into the corner day by day.
f4flake said:
For years Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, eventually falling foul of anti-trust law in the US and competition laws in the EU. Phones should be subject to to the same initiatives.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And I'm kind of surprised nobody has thrown a fit about how smartphones are locked down even more. Microsoft got sued for bundling IE and not allowing you to uninstall it since it was integrated with the OS. You could still install a 3rd party browser and set it as default, and you could still install another OS if you wanted to.
Today we have Android phone OEMs that bundle bloatware which cannot be uninstalled without voiding your warranty and rooting. Bootloaders are locked and now batteries are non-removable. Its all a way to make your phone obsolete quicker so you have to replace it sooner.
I agree with you about the bootloaders and such I am using a one x from AT&T and if I had known about s-off and bootlodaer locks I woulda went with another Samsung device I'm coming from the best dev phone there is so far the captivate completely unbrickable proof that devices can be made modular and completly open source we buy.these phones we.should be able to do with them as.we.please.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
Hey guys and gals, there's a petition floating around that everyone needs to sign. If you value the ability to unlock your device, you need to sign this. Let your voice be heard and keep this AOSP. XDA is a strong vast community of devs and noons alike. Don't let them take our rights.
http://www.androidauthority.com/mobile-phone-unlocking-petition-150925/
Thank You all very much:laugh:
I SIGNED
jbats said:
Hey guys and gals, there's a petition floating around that everyone needs to sign. If you value the ability to unlock your device, you need to sign this. Let your voice be heard and keep this AOSP. XDA is a strong vast community of devs and noons alike. Don't let them take our rights.
http://www.androidauthority.com/mobile-phone-unlocking-petition-150925/
Thank You all very much:laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i signed it man hope it helps we need to get this out more on different forums and such anything i can do to help
soldier1184 said:
i signed it man hope it helps we need to get this out more on different forums and such anything i can do to help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Repost to your social networks, start other threads, pass it along. If you don't voice your opinion, you can't moan when they get locked down. Look what Verizon just did with there recent update. Luckily we have Adam Outler in our arsenal of devs.
jbats said:
Hey guys and gals, there's a petition floating around that everyone needs to sign. If you value the ability to unlock your device, you need to sign this. Let your voice be heard and keep this AOSP. XDA is a strong vast community of devs and noons alike. Don't let them take our rights.
http://www.androidauthority.com/mobile-phone-unlocking-petition-150925/
Thank You all very much:laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Signed it a few minutes ago
Sent from my GT-P3110 using xda app-developers app
I just wanted to give my two cents on this issue. I'm not a nay-sayer and am not trying to say you shouldn't take action if you believe action is warranted.
My opinions on this issue are as follows.
1. Has anyone read any of the official 'white house' responses from other petitions? It's like they pay someone (not sure who but I would bet they make minimum wage) to give a 2 or 3 line comment to whatever you submit. So say this petition gets an additional 82,000 signatures... what's the official response going to be? "Thank you for your concern in this matter, however, the administration's official position is that modifying an item that you do not fully own adds a burden and cost to businesses when those modifications result in failure of said item. We will continue to evaluate this issue" or some BS.
2. This law isn't enforceable. You can't physically 'go after' people for their cell phones and prosecute them. There's just no manpower to do so. Next time you get pulled over for speeding is the cop going to see your cell phone in your car and ask to see it? How's he/she going to know it's unlocked without permission (or unlocked at all)?
3. Let this law stand... see where it goes... Imagine the fallout if carriers started sending warning texts to people who have supposedly illegally unlocked their phones! Imagine the lawsuits/bad publicity that would spawn against carriers for monitoring people's cell phones without their consent or knowledge! I guarantee there's nothing in anyone's cell contracts that would allow T-Mobile, AT&T, etc. the right to track and monitor usage of the device throughout the duration of your contract to insure the device isn't being tampered with or unlocked.
4. This is just political figures throwing their campaign contributor 'a bone' and another sad sign of just how bloated government is here. This law is no different than some of the other ridiculous digital copyright crap being spewed out.
5. Once your contract is up you are allowed to do whatever you wish to your phone. You can also get permission to have your device unlocked from your carrier at any time. I know of a few people that travel abroad and for them it was as simple as asking to be able to use another sim when they travel. If you have a good long standing account with your carrier they are very likely to comply (else they risk losing business).
None of this applies to flashing custom roms or the like (which will always void any warranty, etc.), just with carrier unlocking the phone.
anactoraaron said:
None of this applies to flashing custom roms or the like (which will always void any warranty, etc.), just with carrier unlocking the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your right and I totally agree. I just recently got an i777 unlocked by simply calling the carrier(ATnT) and requesting it so I could use it with a prepaid network. The account was in good standing, all previous balance had been paid off.Voila
Trick was driving 45 mins to get a sim, because I told the carrier it was my phone(idiot), but my friend was happy.
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.