Database Info

The FCC wants public opinion on ATT acquisition of Tmobile!

The FCC is opening its ears to public opinions on this whole takeover going down. Check out this article!
http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/0...-on-the-attt-mobile-deal-grab-your-pitchfork/
and here is the link where you can speak your mind, it is also linked in the article above!
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=24j63
While the article states some more phone technical difficulties and how poorly ATT treats the android community, they also need to realize some equally bigger and some effects that will be instantly impacting everyone. The acquisition will leave ATT with too many stores and they will and have already stated that they will have to cut back the work force, I would speculate a good percentage, around 15-20% of the total workforce after they acquire Tmobile. This is going to be an instant loss in THOUSANDS of jobs across the US. Great, lets lay smore people off in this already ****ty economy, **** you ATT.
Imagine if ATT did not find a way to immediately integrate the current tmobile network into the current ATT network. This would mean all sorts of issues starting with new phones, many of the 34 million customers tmobile has will be forced to buy new phones. ATT just spent 39 billion dollars on a new company do you really think they are going to give everyone new phones of equal value to the ones they currently have? I would guess maybe similar deals to what are currently on the market if you sign a new contract and maybe an additional 50-100 dollars if you sign a new contract coming from tmobile. Not only that but how is the new network going to handle the instant surge of traffic into their network, an almost 40% instant increase in traffic! They can hardly handle their own traffic currently!
ATT is ultimately buying what they cannot earn or achieve on its own and a more liberal and customer friendly business model is threatening to what ATT wants. ATT continuously gets horrible reviews on their customer service where as Tmobile is continuously receiving outstanding reviews on theirs, again tmobile buying a model to maybe improve their own or just ultimately stomp out the competition so they don't look as bad. People cannot hate them if after 5 years of no tmobile they dont remember how the good days were.
ATT has slower and poorer network coverage than Tmobile, especially when it comes to "4g" and I use 4g loosely because it is not true 4g, however it is vastly further along than ATT's equivalent model for growth. Again, ATT cannot keep up so they are buying up.
Tmobile caters to android and the development of google's open OS model. Google has released all of their officially branded phones to work with tmobile's network because tmobile continues to support google, it has been a great mutual relationship. I owned a nexus one phone for tmobile and I remember the release of an ATT radio banded nexus one and it was like a whole other world for ATT users to be on a stock android device that was not locked down by the carrier at all.
These were just the first points that popped into my head... people rarely look past anything other than the phone and network incompatibility because that will effect them personally.
"The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security, and modernizing the FCC." The FCC does have to take into account large scale effects on the country such as tens of thousands of jobs going away as a result of the merger. Competition is a big factor in this because if ultimately this turns into a monopoly setting for ATT then the FCC looks like assholes in letting this go through and they will be in the middle of a huge judicial matter down the road. If the FCC feels that millions of customers will face a headache or extra financial burden by the merger than this falls under the public safety, protecting us from damages.
I encourage that if you do say something about the merger, be academic about it. 10 million people chiming in about ATT's ****ty customer service will not get anything done, the FCC does not give a rats ass about quality customer service or high dropped call rates, they are going to be focused on business model, economical impact in the present and future and ultimately the immediate effect on customers and any unnecessary financial burdens. This is a selfish act by ATT and they are covering it up with their bull**** about how they want to expand their network for the benefit of everyone.

147 comment/complaints!
i have made mine lets take advantage of our rights and tell the FCC how we REALLY FEEL!
THANKS FOR THE LINKS OP!

nate420 said:
147 comment/complaints!
i have made mine lets take advantage of our rights and tell the FCC how we REALLY FEEL!
THANKS FOR THE LINKS OP!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no problem man! this issue is bigger than, omg i dont want to deal with ATT, their ****ty customer service and ****ty phones...

What is the "proceeding number" and "filing number"?

What does my Front Facing Camera care about AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile?

v8dreaming said:
What is the "proceeding number" and "filing number"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
11-65 is the proceeding number
read the andriodpolice link and then go to the fcc link!
MWBehr said:
What does my Front Facing Camera care about AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL @ the topic name
@ op can you edit the topic tittle to FCC not FFC lol

Thank you for this thread! I've posted my misgivings and although I'm sure it doesn't meet their request for it to be 'brief', it certainly outlined my biggest issues w/this travesty!
I also liked both this page and the article itself in Stumbleupon. I had thought about like the FCC page, but w/o an explanation, I know ppl wouldn't know what it was about.
If this unholy union takes place, all I can say is I hope they send me some lipstick, because as Cartman said, "... I like to look pretty before I get*bleeped*!"

nate420 said:
11-65 is the proceeding number
read the andriodpolice link and then go to the fcc link!
LOL @ the topic name
@ op can you edit the topic tittle to FCC not FFC lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL wow i totally did not even notice this either... proofreadfail

Voiced my disapproval of the deal.

I think I agree with the OP's statements on this matter. Especially his last paragraph. They want to get an idea of what their getting into before they make a final choice. If everyone just tells them how much they hate Att and how crappy their CS is, then your just wasting your time. They will prolly make it through the first sentence and discard your message. I would suggest being mature, direct - and by direct I do not mean demanding. Focus on the big picture rather than just how it effects yourself. They wanna make sure that they arent going to regret this, they dont want to be the ones that hurt thousands of hard working americans in such a wounded economy. With gas prices, real estate and tons of material costs and not to mention food prices raising more and more, the last thing they want is to screw the cellular economy also. I would suggest reading the whole original post and thinking before you hit the send button. Because I think these emails will have an impact on their decision, I would send one, but I am not a true t-mobile customer, although I will be shortly. I honestly hope this doesnt go through, I really dont like Att either, but also dont know t-mobile enough to give an honest, informed opinion. Good luck to us all. . .

Help Spread the Word and Support TrevE (Situation solved)

As some of you may know TrevE has helped to discover CIQ problems that were prevalent throughout a plethora of devices. Due to his efforts to educate us in what was going on in our devices CIQ has now issued a C&D to him. I urge you all to read this article and please help spread the word: http://www.xda-developers.com/android/carrier-iq-sues-treve/

dastin1015 said:
As some of you may know TrevE has helped to discover CIQ problems that were prevalent throughout a plethora of devices. Due to his efforts to educate us in what was going on in our devices CIQ has now issued a C&D to him. I urge you all to read this article and please help spread the word: http://www.xda-developers.com/android/carrier-iq-sues-treve/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man I totally agree with you. I already tipped a bunch of tech news sites and I posted on a few blogs. You mind if I steal your sig while this is happening?

monkeychef said:
Man I totally agree with you. I already tipped a bunch of tech news sites and I posted on a few blogs. You mind if I steal your sig while this is happening?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Go ahead
私のエボ3Dから送信される。

+1
If he is taking up donations for legal fees count me in.

I hadn't heard about this. Thanks for bringing it to light for me. It's absolutely terrible.

+1
I'm one of yours

BREAKING NEWS!
TREV WINS
Mountain View, CA – November 23, 2011 – As, of today, we are withdrawing
our cease and desist letter to Mr. Trevor Eckhart. We have reached out to Mr.
Eckhart and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to apologize. Our action
was misguided and we are deeply sorry for any concern or trouble that our letter
may have caused Mr. Eckhart. We sincerely appreciate and respect EFF’s work
on his behalf, and share their commitment to protecting free speech in a rapidly
changing technological world.
We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the functionality of Carrier IQ’s
software, what it does not do and what it does:
- Does not record your keystrokes.
- Does not provide tracking tools.
- Does not inspect or report on the content of your communications, such as
the content of emails and SMSs.
- Does not provide real-time data reporting to any customer.
- Finally, we do not sell Carrier IQ data to third parties.
Our software is designed to help mobile network providers diagnose critical
issues that lead to problems such as dropped calls and battery drain.
Here’s what our software does:
- Our software makes your phone work better by identifying dropped calls
and poor service.
- Our software identifies problems that impede a phone’s battery life.
- Our software makes customer service quicker, more accurate, and more
efficient.
- Our software helps quickly identify trending problems to help mobile
networks prevent them from becoming more widespread.
We look forward to a healthy and robust discussion with EFF that we believe will
be helpful to us, to our customers, and to consumers that use mobile devices.
We welcome feedback on our products and understand that Mr. Eckhart and
other developers like him play an important role by raising questions about the
complicated and technical aspects of the mobile ecosystem.
私のエボ3Dから送信される。

My open letter to Carrier IQ.
Dear Carrier Iq Team,
I'm deeply annoyed and a kind of anger is surging as well.
I think you lost all credibility by the way you behaved with Mr. Eckhart, XDA dev., who did point to us users the hidden tool that you implemented in some smartphones.
Withouth the knwoledge of their customers!

Trying to sue him than retracting because of a growing pressure from the community shows also how you are acting and thinking.
Not consumer friendly and by your behaviour you do a lot of damage to that industry. Who will now believe you if you says that you don't track sensible datas or so. Me not! You just lost a lot of credibility.
I saw the post from Mr. Eckhart and the very intelligent way how he pointed that out. I'm not sure that regulations allow you to do it that way and will have to dig a bit into it.
I saw the C&D letter you sent to him and must say that your General Consel who wrote it lacks some kind of diplomacy and judgment.
Maybe you're allowed in your country to do such things, which i doubt. In Europe you could get sued for that. Keep it in mind and tell your wise General Counsel to be ready.
Do you remember how much problems Street View had in our beautifull Europe…keep that in mind also.
I'm not a dev., i'm not an it security guy, just a plain customer, an angry customer.
Sincerly.
Innal

As situation solved this nos longer needs to be stickied.

FORBES MAGAZINE: Carrier IQ May Have Violated Wiretap Law In Millions Of Cases

There are MANY articles about carrier IQ now that the company has been exposed to the Streisand effect
I am also aware that there are a few posts here on XDA where people are posting news links. However, i still feel this deserved its own post.
some good quotes from the article:
That’s not just creepy, says Paul Ohm, a former Justice Department prosecutor and law professor at the University of Colorado Law School. He thinks it’s also likely grounds for a class action lawsuit based on a federal wiretapping law.
“If CarrierIQ has gotten the handset manufactures to install secret software that records keystrokes intended for text messaging and the Internet and are sending some of that information back somewhere, this is very likely a federal wiretap.” he says. “And that gives the people wiretapped the right to sue and provides for significant monetary damages.”
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
“In the next days or weeks, someone will sue, and then this company is tangled up in very expensive litigation,” he adds. “It’s almost certain.”
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
full article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygre...ve-violated-wiretap-law-in-millions-of-cases/

When there is already an active topic thread you must post in there.

We may soon become criminals... seriously!

As the law now stands, we are able to root our phones without legal interference. However, this liberty is due to a temporary exemption which the government issued in 2010.
The U.S. Copyright office is currently considering whether to allow "the exemption" to expire. This would mean that it will become a crime to root your phone (or otherwise modify it contrary to what the manufacturer/carrier specifies)!
The U.S. Copyright office is accepting comments until 5:00 p.m. E.S.T. on February 10, 2012. It is vital that each of us act dilligently concerning this issue.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has an excellent discussion about this topic at their "Jailbreaking is NOT a Crime" page. A website to educate and gather support has been set up at the Jailbreaking is NOT a Crime website (which is also sponsored by the EFF).
Our individual and collective actions are important on this issue... just as was the case concerning the issue of SOPA/PIPA. Unfortunately, this issue has not been as well-publicized.
Get the word out. It depends on us, the ones who will be affected.

Agreed. We need everyone to act on this.

Well the day I get arrested for doing what I want in my own home with the electronics I bought with what little money the government didn't take out of my hard earned paycheck is the day I give up on life and become a genuine Jesse James.
Though maybe this should've been in general?
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda premium

ohh man .....
May be one day, it would be crime to put on a bumper sticker on my car.
Are we living in china or north korea??

These copyright *actions* are getting all messed up. America is becoming like China..

China's not all bad...
Lubcrayon said:
These copyright *actions* are getting all messed up. America is becoming like China..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, in China, there's no problem with copyright infringement...

IMEI change and legality, mods please read

Good afternoon mods, I'm sorry but I had to open a thread about this topic again.
It's absolutely not illegal to change your IMEI in most of the world. For instance, it's completely legal in the entirety of the US (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mobile_Equipment_Identity#IMEI_and_the_law).
As far as I know, the only known law in the whole of Europe (referring to the continent) that makes it illegal is in the UK and it's only illegal if you don't have the manufacturer permission. If you do, it's legal (see See 3.b https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/31/section/1). And it's perfectly possible to obtain such permissions from some manufacturers.
There is one specific German law making it illegal if and only if IMEI change is done in the context of tampering with evidence after a crime. And not before if it's not tampering with evidence.
While I do understand IMEI change could be illegal (citation needed?) in some rather few authoritarian regimes like China or even India. It's absolutely not illegal (yet) in most of the democratic world including the US, the UK (if you have permission from the manufacturer) and the EU. But it would be a bit ironic to ban this based on the laws of such regimes as they probably wouldn't allow rooting/jailbreaking either.
I also do understand IMEI change is probably against the ToS of many mobile operators but there is a very large gap between violating ToS and violating the law.
In brief, there are certainly in my opinion not enough of those place (yet) to justify a blanket censorship of this topic when it's also clearly an important privacy issue and that Apps/Operators/Manufacturers and indeed authoritarian law enforcement are using the IMEI to track users and also to track dissidents/protesters (see BLM, see Kashmir, see Hong Kong, see Lebanon, see Belarus, ...)
I would like to kindly request mods to provide a citation of this being illegal before applying such a blanket ban.
This is not a troll at all. There have been numerous threads about this topic on XDA and this is a recurring issue of mods seemingly thinking this is illegal when it's not. The whole perceived illegality of IMEI change is in almost all cases hearsay without any legal base.
Thank you kindly for your consideration and hopefully you won't ban me for this.
(Just to be clear, this topic is not about asking a way to change IMEI but asking the mods to provide citations about the illegality of IMEI change when censoring such threads)

I can't think of a legitimate reason why someone would need to change their IMEI number unless they are doing something shady.
Regardless of if the process itself is legal or not, the reasons why you would need to do it are most likely not legal. I'm sure that's why it falls under the "Don't get us into trouble." rule on here.

byAidan said:
I can't think of a legitimate reason why someone would need to change their IMEI number unless they are doing something shady.
Regardless of if the process itself is legal or not, the reasons why you would need to do it are most likely not legal. I'm sure that's why it falls under the "Don't get us into trouble." rule on here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for your answer.
The same reasoning could be used for MAC address randomization or for any other privacy feature such as XPrivacy or Magisk Hide ... Yet those are fine. All the banks and some apps (Netflix) will also argue you have no reason to root/jailbreak and subsequently hide the root/jailbreak if you're not doing shady things.
The same reasoning could be used for VPN/Tor users or those who use private DNS over TLS/HTTPS. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear?
A good legitimate reason is for instance that all Banking Apps (and many others) require "Phone permission" which allows them to read the IMEI. This allows them to track you with an unchangeable UID. A much better UID than any other tracking ID generated by the OS.
Another good legitimate reason besides avoiding commercial tracking is to make illegal dragnet surveillance a bit less effective.
And last but not least, it can help people stay alive under highly oppressive regimes ...
But I'm not arguing to ethically accept something illegal. I'm arguing to not ethically reject something perfectly legal using a wrong reasoning such as its supposed illegality.
I don't see any legitimate reason for Apps/Operators/Manufacturers to be able to track users using unchangeable UIDs such as the IMEI. And again ... it's absolutely not illegal so why make it illegal or shady?
Sure it can be used for shady things ... But this is valid for anything. IMHO Shady people won't use this anyway, they'll just use burner phones. Why bother wasting time with IMEI change ...
In the end, fair enough ... XDA is of course not a public space in itself and they're free to moderate the way they want. I'm just arguing that mods shouldn't use the "It's illegal" reasoning when removing those topics.
Instead they should just say "We think it's too shady and we don't like it ... even if it's legal" ... But stating it's illegal is just factually incorrect in most of the world.

byAidan said:
I can't think of a legitimate reason why someone would need to change their IMEI number unless they are doing something shady.
Regardless of if the process itself is legal or not, the reasons why you would need to do it are most likely not legal. I'm sure that's why it falls under the "Don't get us into trouble." rule on here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a rebuttal if may.
The act of changing an IMEI in itself is not legal. I'm also quite sure there are valid and legal reasons to do so. If the reasons were illegal then the act would be, too.
Also. It is not reasonable to throw out a blanket and say that everyone that would want to do this is up to something shady. Most people are decent, to label everyone as having nefarious intentions is counter-productive.
Just my humble opinion.....
Sent from my IN2025 using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------
One more comment. Legal or not is not the issue here. The forum has rules in order to post here. One of them is related legal/illegal activity. Since this is a public forum accessable around the world there could be users from a country where this topic is not legal. For that reason XDA is well within their right to ban this particular subject matter and a few others, too.
Sent from my IN2025 using Tapatalk

hurlube said:
Good afternoon mods, I'm sorry but I had to open a thread about this topic again.
...
Thank you kindly for your consideration and hopefully you won't ban me for this.
(Just to be clear, this topic is not about asking a way to change IMEI but asking the mods to provide citations about the illegality of IMEI change when censoring such threads)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@hurlube First, please allow me to apologise that it really took a long time until I recognised this thread - and only by accident. XDA has not only 10+M members, it also hosts 3.5M+ threads with 78+M posts. If you count the number of moderators e.g. here and further consider that all moderators are volunteers and do this "job" for free besides their real life, real family and friends, real business and profession, I hope you can understand that there's no possibility at all to actively every thread and post if moderators' support, assistance or guidance is requested somewhere. We clearly depend on the single and all XDA members is this matter.
It's very unlikely that a moderator becomes aware of e.g. your thread unless a member reports the thread or a post via the report function or you mention or quote a moderator (like I did with you @hurlube). Another possibility is certainly a PM to a moderator but due to the reasons mentioned above it might be that a PM rests in a moderator's inbox unacted for days or weeks.
Now to the subject of this thread itself... Neither I nor my team mates say that the change or the edit of an IMEI is illegal everywhere. If you look at e.g. my post here, I stated with reference to rule no. 9 of the XDA Forum Rules:
Change/edit of IMEI is a legal offence in quite a few of countries; hence discussions or support in this respect is not allowed on XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't say that change or edit of IMEI is illegal everywhere. There're quite a lot of things that are legal and even encouraged in some countries while being illegal in other countries like freedom of speech and opinion, the right to demonstrate, suicide and active, passive or indirect euthanasia. I think I could most likely extend this list endlessly. Some countries protect authorship, copyright and ownership while in other countries even official agencies support their violation or plagiarism.
I think it's obviously difficult for a private website in the world wide web to follow a right and consistent way. XDA was founded back in 2003 by developers for developers (see xda-developers: The History -Part One-), and I believe this is still the trait of XDA. Allow me to quote the XDA Forum Rules:
XDA-Developers is based on the principle of sharing to transmit knowledge. This is the cornerstone of our site. Our members and developers freely share their experience, knowledge, and finished works with the rest of the community to promote growth within the developer community, and to encourage those still learning to become better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We try to support developers and defend their ownership, while simultaneously enforcing GPL and the requirement to give credits when due, and we don't accept warez at all.
On the other hand, we don't want to lose sight of all other XDA members and users for whom we want to provide a platform to ask for help and support, to share opinions and experiences in a friendly, civil and respectful environment.
In order to implement above principles, this private website or platform has brought its own and already quoted forum rules into effect. And regarding the change or the edit of IMEI the XDA stance is like stated in my above linked post: We do not allow any kind of IMEI editing! However, if it's about restoring original IMEI/EFS that's not considered editing/changing hence allowed. And we also allow discussion and support regarding IMEI spoofing or masking as long as it happens on software level and the actual hard-coded board IMEI isn't tampered with. Thus it's allowed to post apps or (Exposed Framework) add-ons with this function that many use due to privacy concerns. But again, for sure we don't accept talks about using it for illegal purpose.
I hope I was able to clarify XDA's stance in this matter. And also allow me a very personal but very important remark to me: I do not censor any thread, and I've never observed that any of my moderator fellows does. But we clean a thread or post from anything that does not comply with the forum rules and always explain to the member whose post was affected the reason why we did that; this occurs most of the time privately by PM's but occasionally also publicly by an announcement in the thread. I really hope that you don't call this censorship!
Last but not least - and I apologise that I've to enforce our rules now as I became aware of your thread: The thread is obviously not related to the Oneplus 8 Pro i.e. I'm moving the thread to the General discussions section.
Stay safe and stay healthy!
Regards
Oswald Boelcke

Thank you very much for your answer Oswald.

hurlube said:
Good afternoon mods, I'm sorry but I had to open a thread about this topic again.
It's absolutely not illegal to change your IMEI in most of the world. For instance, it's completely legal in the entirety of the US (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mobile_Equipment_Identity#IMEI_and_the_law).
As far as I know, the only known law in the whole of Europe (referring to the continent) that makes it illegal is in the UK and it's only illegal if you don't have the manufacturer permission. If you do, it's legal (see See 3.b https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/31/section/1). And it's perfectly possible to obtain such permissions from some manufacturers.
There is one specific German law making it illegal if and only if IMEI change is done in the context of tampering with evidence after a crime. And not before if it's not tampering with evidence.
While I do understand IMEI change could be illegal (citation needed?) in some rather few authoritarian regimes like China or even India. It's absolutely not illegal (yet) in most of the democratic world including the US, the UK (if you have permission from the manufacturer) and the EU. But it would be a bit ironic to ban this based on the laws of such regimes as they probably wouldn't allow rooting/jailbreaking either.
I also do understand IMEI change is probably against the ToS of many mobile operators but there is a very large gap between violating ToS and violating the law.
In brief, there are certainly in my opinion not enough of those place (yet) to justify a blanket censorship of this topic when it's also clearly an important privacy issue and that Apps/Operators/Manufacturers and indeed authoritarian law enforcement are using the IMEI to track users and also to track dissidents/protesters (see BLM, see Kashmir, see Hong Kong, see Lebanon, see Belarus, ...)
I would like to kindly request mods to provide a citation of this being illegal before applying such a blanket ban.
This is not a troll at all. There have been numerous threads about this topic on XDA and this is a recurring issue of mods seemingly thinking this is illegal when it's not. The whole perceived illegality of IMEI change is in almost all cases hearsay without any legal base.
Thank you kindly for your consideration and hopefully you won't ban me for this.
(Just to be clear, this topic is not about asking a way to change IMEI but asking the mods to provide citations about the illegality of IMEI change when censoring such threads)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very odd. I'm an attorney who practices criminal law in Kentucky and Tennessee, specializing in appellate and posts conviction writs. I have two clients who are serving substantial prison sentences for allegedly spoofing the IMEI/MEID device identifiers on dozens of mobile devices for the purpose of bypassing blacklisting restrictions imposed as a result of the devices having been reported stolen, as well as some allegations of subscriber fraud. To give you an idea of just how substantial the sentences are, both defendants were middle-aged at the time of sentencing, and it is very likely.that neither of them will ever make it to get out of prison.
I'm sure my clients would love to know the precedent you are relying upon in your position that this practice is fully legal in the US. Such a precedent would surely invalidate their convictions and exonerate them both. Let me guess, your legal expertise and position are based on some jargon you read on Google. Everybody is a lawyer who has internet access these days.
Federal law and statutes enacted in all 50 states explicitly prohibit concealing the identity of a mobile phone by way of altering, modifying, spoofing or otherwise changing the device's unique identifiers. While some state statutes require an element of intent for conviction, most prohibit the practice regardless of mens rea (criminal culpability). In fact, the practice is considered so serious, the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Secret Service investigate and initiate prosecution of such offenses on the federal level. The involvement of these two agencies is a surefire indication that this very subject rises to the level of national security. You couldn't possibly be any more incorrect on this subject. Spreading such blatantly false information on a platform such as XDA is poison. I'm sure this BS has been read by a multitude of members and visitors.
You made reference to wanting citation of a specific law or authority prohibiting the practice of changing the unique identifiers of a mobile phone. I would direct you to the federal statute
18 U.S. Code § 1029​Read the statute, its annotations, revisions, amendments and progeny very carefully. This is the statute the US Attorney's office will use to crucify you in the event you are caught.
For clarification, there is nothing illegal in rewriting an IMEI/MEID number that has been invalidated, wiped, corrupted or otherwise damaged on a mobile phone. This occurs quite often during procedures such as flashing firmware to a device without first making a backup of the /efs or /nvdata partitions. SP Flash Tool is notorious for wiping device identifiers, MAC addresses and other values unique to the device. It is often necessary to rewrite or fix these components in order to regain network, Bluetooth and WiFi functionality. I am referring specifically to changing device identifiers in a manner that would mask or conceal the device's true identity.

Viva La Android said:
Very odd. I'm an attorney who practices criminal law in Kentucky and Tennessee, specializing in appellate and posts conviction writs. I have two clients who are serving substantial prison sentences for allegedly spoofing the IMEI/MEID device identifiers on dozens of mobile devices for the purpose of bypassing blacklisting restrictions imposed as a result of the devices having been reported stolen, as well as some allegations of subscriber fraud. To give you an idea of just how substantial the sentences are, both defendants were middle-aged at the time of sentencing, and it is very likely.that neither of them will ever make it to get out of prison.
I'm sure my clients would love to know the precedent you are relying upon in your position that this practice is fully legal in the US. Such a precedent would surely invalidate their convictions and exonerate them both. Let me guess, your legal expertise and position are based on some jargon you read on Google. Everybody is a lawyer who has internet access these days.
Federal law and statutes enacted in all 50 states explicitly prohibit concealing the identity of a mobile phone by way of altering, modifying, spoofing or otherwise changing the device's unique identifiers. While some state statutes require an element of intent for conviction, most prohibit the practice regardless of mens rea (criminal culpability). In fact, the practice is considered so serious, the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Secret Service investigate and initiate prosecution of such offenses on the federal level. The involvement of these two agencies is a surefire indication that this very subject rises to the level of national security. You couldn't possibly be any more incorrect on this subject. Spreading such blatantly false information on a platform such as XDA is poison. I'm sure this BS has been read by a multitude of members and visitors.
You made reference to wanting citation of a specific law or authority prohibiting the practice of changing the unique identifiers of a mobile phone. I would direct you to the federal statute
18 U.S. Code § 1029​Read the statute, its annotations, revisions, amendments and progeny very carefully. This is the statute the US Attorney's office will use to crucify you in the event you are caught.
For clarification, there is nothing illegal in rewriting an IMEI/MEID number that has been invalidated, wiped, corrupted or otherwise damaged on a mobile phone. This occurs quite often during procedures such as flashing firmware to a device without first making a backup of the /efs or /nvdata partitions. SP Flash Tool is notorious for wiping device identifiers, MAC addresses and other values unique to the device. It is often necessary to rewrite or fix these components in order to regain network, Bluetooth and WiFi functionality. I am referring specifically to changing device identifiers in a manner that would mask or conceal the device's true identity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow.....
so i'm not sure which is the case and which is worse, that you're a supposed attorney and miss-read the previous statements or that your a supposed attorney and don't understand the inherent difference of intent in 1029 versus what is being talked about here.
i don't mean offense by this, just very, VERY surprised at your whole statement here.
fair bit to unpack here to bear with it for a bit;
just about every causal line in 1029 is prefaced by "knowingly and with intent to defraud..."
obviously your clients intended to use stolen mobile devices and use them for some purpose, either that's cloning another IMEI or simply changing the IMEI to activate them on a new service line.
both ARE illegal acts since the originating device was a stolen device, this in turn then brings into effect 1029 (and also 18 U.S.C. § 2315). since they likely knew it was stolen and even if they used the excuse that they didn't know, after finding out it was blacklisted they went through the further trouble of changing the IMEIs instead of doing the right thing and reporting the devices and the seller which then further calls into question the legality of the means they came into possession of the devices as well as pointing more toward their intent to defraud the cellular carrier.
both those factors i'm sure played a HEAVY role in their convictions.
in a scenario where a legal owner of a device, that they purchased themselves wants to change the IMEI, they can (in the usa), one instance of a LEGAL reason to do so is to prevent undisclosed throttling by the cellular carrier and this is done quite regularly by carriers to varying degrees and regions.
for instance, they will sell you 50gb of hotspot usage but then drastically throttle your connection speeds of the devices behind that hotspot, all the while never disclosing that fact to the customer, often even after being confronted on the subject they will even state that they only throttle in times of high congestion (an easily disproved excuse, if the speed is significantly slower on a tethered device while the cellular device itself has massively better speeds at all times then it's not congestion)
the customer has paid for hotspot usage, not hotspot usage at a reduced speed. (though some are disclosed, if only in the contract text itself, the customer would need to check this first)
changing the IMEI of a hotspot to that of say, a tablet that the person also owns for instance, would bypass that throttling and allow the customer to get the speeds that they have in fact paid for.
this is in fact what this type of modification is most commonly used for.
in this scenario there is no defrauding taking place, the customer is paying for a service that they are using on hardware that they have legally purchased and are taking actions simply to get what they have paid for and what the carrier agreed to provide them per the subscriber contract, neither 18 U.S.C. §1029 or 18 U.S.C. §2315 would come into effect or question, thus the action is perfectly legal.
since as i'm sure you're aware, in the USA, unless there is a law that SPECIFICALLY states an action is illegal, then said action is LEGAL.
the law is restrictive not permissive; people don't need permission to go outside and take a walk down the road, it is not forbidden by law therefore it is legal.
as others have said, most criminals will just buy burner $50 phones from walmart rather than go through all this trouble to change the imei.

In
Mechcondrid said:
wow.....
so i'm not sure which is the case and which is worse, that you're a supposed attorney and miss-read the previous statements or that your a supposed attorney and don't understand the inherent difference of intent in 1029 versus what is being talked about here.
i don't mean offense by this, just very, VERY surprised at your whole statement here.
fair bit to unpack here to bear with it for a bit;
just about every causal line in 1029 is prefaced by "knowingly and with intent to defraud..."
obviously your clients intended to use stolen mobile devices and use them for some purpose, either that's cloning another IMEI or simply changing the IMEI to activate them on a new service line.
both ARE illegal acts since the originating device was a stolen device, this in turn then brings into effect 1029 (and also 18 U.S.C. § 2315). since they likely knew it was stolen and even if they used the excuse that they didn't know, after finding out it was blacklisted they went through the further trouble of changing the IMEIs instead of doing the right thing and reporting the devices and the seller which then further calls into question the legality of the means they came into possession of the devices as well as pointing more toward their intent to defraud the cellular carrier.
both those factors i'm sure played a HEAVY role in their convictions.
in a scenario where a legal owner of a device, that they purchased themselves wants to change the IMEI, they can (in the usa), one instance of a LEGAL reason to do so is to prevent undisclosed throttling by the cellular carrier and this is done quite regularly by carriers to varying degrees and regions.
for instance, they will sell you 50gb of hotspot usage but then drastically throttle your connection speeds of the devices behind that hotspot, all the while never disclosing that fact to the customer, often even after being confronted on the subject they will even state that they only throttle in times of high congestion (an easily disproved excuse, if the speed is significantly slower on a tethered device while the cellular device itself has massively better speeds at all times then it's not congestion)
the customer has paid for hotspot usage, not hotspot usage at a reduced speed. (though some are disclosed, if only in the contract text itself, the customer would need to check this first)
changing the IMEI of a hotspot to that of say, a tablet that the person also owns for instance, would bypass that throttling and allow the customer to get the speeds that they have in fact paid for.
this is in fact what this type of modification is most commonly used for.
in this scenario there is no defrauding taking place, the customer is paying for a service that they are using on hardware that they have legally purchased and are taking actions simply to get what they have paid for and what the carrier agreed to provide them per the subscriber contract, neither 18 U.S.C. §1029 or 18 U.S.C. §2315 would come into effect or question, thus the action is perfectly legal.
since as i'm sure you're aware, in the USA, unless there is a law that SPECIFICALLY states an action is illegal, then said action is LEGAL.
the law is restrictive not permissive; people don't need permission to go outside and take a walk down the road, it is not forbidden by law therefore it is legal.
as others have said, most criminals will just buy burner $50 phones from walmart rather than go through all this trouble to change the imei
Mechcondrid said:
wow.....
so i'm not sure which is the case and which is worse, that you're a supposed attorney and miss-read the previous statements or that your a supposed attorney and don't understand the inherent difference of intent in 1029 versus what is being talked about here.
i don't mean offense by this, just very, VERY surprised at your whole statement here.
fair bit to unpack here to bear with it for a bit;
just about every causal line in 1029 is prefaced by "knowingly and with intent to defraud..."
obviously your clients intended to use stolen mobile devices and use them for some purpose, either that's cloning another IMEI or simply changing the IMEI to activate them on a new service line.
both ARE illegal acts since the originating device was a stolen device, this in turn then brings into effect 1029 (and also 18 U.S.C. § 2315). since they likely knew it was stolen and even if they used the excuse that they didn't know, after finding out it was blacklisted they went through the further trouble of changing the IMEIs instead of doing the right thing and reporting the devices and the seller which then further calls into question the legality of the means they came into possession of the devices as well as pointing more toward their intent to defraud the cellular carrier.
both those factors i'm sure played a HEAVY role in their convictions.
in a scenario where a legal owner of a device, that they purchased themselves wants to change the IMEI, they can (in the usa), one instance of a LEGAL reason to do so is to prevent undisclosed throttling by the cellular carrier and this is done quite regularly by carriers to varying degrees and regions.
for instance, they will sell you 50gb of hotspot usage but then drastically throttle your connection speeds of the devices behind that hotspot, all the while never disclosing that fact to the customer, often even after being confronted on the subject they will even state that they only throttle in times of high congestion (an easily disproved excuse, if the speed is significantly slower on a tethered device while the cellular device itself has massively better speeds at all times then it's not congestion)
the customer has paid for hotspot usage, not hotspot usage at a reduced speed. (though some are disclosed, if only in the contract text itself, the customer would need to check this first)
changing the IMEI of a hotspot to that of say, a tablet that the person also owns for instance, would bypass that throttling and allow the customer to get the speeds that they have in fact paid for.
this is in fact what this type of modification is most commonly used for.
in this scenario there is no defrauding taking place, the customer is paying for a service that they are using on hardware that they have legally purchased and are taking actions simply to get what they have paid for and what the carrier agreed to provide them per the subscriber contract, neither 18 U.S.C. §1029 or 18 U.S.C. §2315 would come into effect or question, thus the action is perfectly legal.
since as i'm sure you're aware, in the USA, unless there is a law that SPECIFICALLY states an action is illegal, then said action is LEGAL.
the law is restrictive not permissive; people don't need permission to go outside and take a walk down the road, it is not forbidden by law therefore it is legal.
as others have said, most criminals will just buy burner $50 phones from walmart rather than go through all this trouble to change the imei.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed you can change your IMEI if you are a device owner. If you get caught, however, you will be prosecuted. I see you read the language of the statute but failed to read the annotations, commentary, amendments and progeny. Perhaps do your full research on the applicable law and then try to debate the substantive language. My interpretation of the statute is not at fault. I have been litigating this statute for a number of years and know full well what it prohibits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

@Mechcondrid, there's a bit more involved in litigation than citing statutory elements. Did you happen to research the federal legal definition of "access device?"
You and I are on the same page in terms of the required mens rea (criminal culpability, i.e. intent) in the context of securing a conviction for access device fraud. The prohibition you're not seeing is the mere act of altering or modifying a device's unique identifiers. This act creates a prima facie case of possessing an unauthorized/counterfeit access device, without demonstrating the mens rea of intent to commit a crime. I'll be glad to hash this out in more detail when I get a few minutes free. So, the question arises, would a person be automatically prosecuted for changing the IMEI/MEID of a mobile device? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? My point is, that technically speaking, the individual has committed a federal crime within the scope of a prima facie context, by altering the identity of the device, in and of itself. The US Supreme Court expounded upon the contextual meaning of prima facie in the case of Virginia v Black. 538 U.S. 343 (2003). For all intents and purposes of this subject matter, prima facie means evidence which on its first appearance is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question, i.e., altering the unique identifiers of a mobile device -- such as a cell phone. But again, when I get a few minutes free I'll hash out the precise points and authorities in the matter sub judice.

Viva La Android said:
@Mechcondrid, there's a bit more involved in litigation than citing statutory elements. This is your free lesson: did you happen to research the federal legal definition of "access device?"
You and I are on the same page in terms of the required mens rea (criminal culpability, i.e. intent) in the context of securing a conviction for access device fraud. The prohibition you're not seeing is the mere act of altering or modifying a device's unique identifiers. This act creates a prima facie case of possessing an unauthorized/counterfeit access device, without demonstrating the mens rea of intent to commit a crime. I'll be glad to hash this out in more detail when I get a few minutes free. So, the question arises, would a person be automatically prosecuted for changing the IMEI/MEID of a mobile device? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? My point is, that technically speaking, the individual has committed a federal crime within the scope of a prima facie context, by altering the identity of the device, in and of itself. The US Supreme Court expounded upon the contextual meaning of prima facie in the case of Virginia v Black. 538 U.S. 343 (2003). For all intents and purposes of this subject matter, prima facie means evidence which on its first appearance is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question, i.e., altering the unique identifiers of a mobile device -- such as a cell phone. But again, when I get a few minutes free I'll hash out the precise points and authorities in the matter sub judice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
actually, yes i am familiar with the federal definition of it; I actually design, build and implement custom IoT CnC (command and control) systems, of which one connection option offered is embedded cellular modules (other options include point to point microwave links as well as satcom links like the U-Blox system).
I do this as part of my job for a DoD contractor, so reading up on the compliance requirements of it is basically required to design and sell these systems unless i'd like the company to run afoul of a number of DFARs regulations/clauses and various federal contracting laws/regulations.
i have to even go as far as what specific brands and SoCs i use in a design depending on the customer, contractual context and if it's DoD related or not.
i research and read far more about the legality of things than you would ever expect a system architect to do.
you are coming into the scenario under the presumption that the IMEI is only ever altered (or at least the majority of the time) for illegal or duplicitous means, while that is a possibility, equally a possibility (or even more likely since there is considerable effort and technical skill involved and criminals generally would want easier methods) is a legitimate reason to do so.
the assumption of prima facie evidence runs under the understanding that the particular action is distinctly common to allude to or point to the very likely commission of a crime and only in the absence of competing evidence.
even then it generally requires the prosecution to provide point by point evidence pointing to the confirmation or the support of the prima facie assumption.
someone gets caught with 5 lbs of marijuana (pre-decriminalization/legalization, but this is an apt example that happened quite a bit) and says it's for "personal use"; it's FAR more likely that amount was purchased with the intent to resell (prima facie) than it is that one person is going to go through 5 whole lbs of weed in any realistic amount of time.
i believe there is also the same kind of law concerning liquor reselling without a liquor license somewhere but the core concept remains the same.
a legal non-blacklisted device, active paid carrier account registered to the person in question, and the IMEI being from a device that is also legally owned by the same user and no other active device used on the network with that IMEI would all be competing points of evidence that are easily verifiable by both third parties and the carrier's own records in conjunction with various forms of proof from the person in question themselves.
in one non-DoD customer scenario (that i've actually had to deal with) a cat 18 lte module we had deployed and provisioned would continuously get throttled and deprioritized as a type of hotspot device when it was in fact a single node communications module due to some issue on the carriers backend management in the regional tower software (passadena, ca area to be specific), the module does not move and is simply in a location where running conventional wired or directed microwave networking infrastructure is both financially and physically infeasible; despite working with the carrier's enterprise support, every time we would get the modem back online to realistically usable speeds, about 72-84 hours later the module would again get deprioritized and return to sub megabit speeds on the upstream; this was a implementation that needed near-realtime data relay (less than 1 minute between data collection and upload/reception) which those kind of abysmal upload speeds completely blew out of the water.
after spending a cumulative 80 man hours attempting to work and troubleshoot with the carrier via normal support channels we decided to alter the imei using a cellular capable samsung tablet we purchased specifically to scavenge the IMEI.
The actual tablet itself is not and was never activated on any network and to this day sits on the server room shelf gathering dust and was never even turned on and had it's first boot setup performed.
i'd honestly be very surprised if the tablet is even still functional considering it's sat there for years in a discharged state.
this was a legal purchase, is not a duplicated hardware node on any carrier network and is being used to access a legally and properly registered service that is being paid for by the registered account owner.
so: no fraud, no cloned device on any network and everything registered as it should be regarding the account owners, simply what amounts to a system repair using IMEI modification.
to date (going on roughly 3 years now) this fix has been rock solid and the only service interruption has been when the local power supply failed after the NEMA enclosure gasket had gotten damaged from a local tech's improper closure of the lid.
there is no specific law (in the USA) forbidding the alteration of an IMEI in and of itself without consideration to the intent or specific actions/activity being performed with the completion of that modification.
a prima facie case would likely be valid if we are talking about an actual cell phone as opposed to a hotspot or other data only terminal since there is little to no legitimate benefit to altering phone IMEIs (smart phone IMEIs are already one of the highest priority devices on carrier networks behind enterprise and first responder/mission critical nodes) outside of some very specific and niche scenarios;
but again, there COULD be legitimate reasons to do so and much of those are relatively easy to prove or disprove with information external to the person that is in question.

Mechcondrid said:
actually, yes i am familiar with the federal definition of it; I actually design, build and implement custom IoT CnC (command and control) systems, of which one connection option offered is embedded cellular modules (other options include point to point microwave links as well as satcom links like the U-Blox system).
I do this as part of my job for a DoD contractor, so reading up on the compliance requirements of it is basically required to design and sell these systems unless i'd like the company to run afoul of a number of DFARs regulations/clauses and various federal contracting laws/regulations.
i have to even go as far as what specific brands and SoCs i use in a design depending on the customer, contractual context and if it's DoD related or not.
i research and read far more about the legality of things than you would ever expect a system architect to do.
you are coming into the scenario under the presumption that the IMEI is only ever altered (or at least the majority of the time) for illegal or duplicitous means, while that is a possibility, equally a possibility (or even more likely since there is considerable effort and technical skill involved and criminals generally would want easier methods) is a legitimate reason to do so.
the assumption of prima facie evidence runs under the understanding that the particular action is distinctly common to allude to or point to the very likely commission of a crime and only in the absence of competing evidence.
even then it generally requires the prosecution to provide point by point evidence pointing to the confirmation or the support of the prima facie assumption.
someone gets caught with 5 lbs of marijuana (pre-decriminalization/legalization, but this is an apt example that happened quite a bit) and says it's for "personal use"; it's FAR more likely that amount was purchased with the intent to resell (prima facie) than it is that one person is going to go through 5 whole lbs of weed in any realistic amount of time.
i believe there is also the same kind of law concerning liquor reselling without a liquor license somewhere but the core concept remains the same.
a legal non-blacklisted device, active paid carrier account registered to the person in question, and the IMEI being from a device that is also legally owned by the same user and no other active device used on the network with that IMEI would all be competing points of evidence that are easily verifiable by both third parties and the carrier's own records in conjunction with various forms of proof from the person in question themselves.
in one non-DoD customer scenario (that i've actually had to deal with) a cat 18 lte module we had deployed and provisioned would continuously get throttled and deprioritized as a type of hotspot device when it was in fact a single node communications module due to some issue on the carriers backend management in the regional tower software (passadena, ca area to be specific), the module does not move and is simply in a location where running conventional wired or directed microwave networking infrastructure is both financially and physically infeasible; despite working with the carrier's enterprise support, every time we would get the modem back online to realistically usable speeds, about 72-84 hours later the module would again get deprioritized and return to sub megabit speeds on the upstream; this was a implementation that needed near-realtime data relay (less than 1 minute between data collection and upload/reception) which those kind of abysmal upload speeds completely blew out of the water.
after spending a cumulative 80 man hours attempting to work and troubleshoot with the carrier via normal support channels we decided to alter the imei using a cellular capable samsung tablet we purchased specifically to scavenge the IMEI.
The actual tablet itself is not and was never activated on any network and to this day sits on the server room shelf gathering dust and was never even turned on and had it's first boot setup performed.
i'd honestly be very surprised if the tablet is even still functional considering it's sat there for years in a discharged state.
this was a legal purchase, is not a duplicated hardware node on any carrier network and is being used to access a legally and properly registered service that is being paid for by the registered account owner.
so: no fraud, no cloned device on any network and everything registered as it should be regarding the account owners, simply what amounts to a system repair using IMEI modification.
to date (going on roughly 3 years now) this fix has been rock solid and the only service interruption has been when the local power supply failed after the NEMA enclosure gasket had gotten damaged from a local tech's improper closure of the lid.
there is no specific law (in the USA) forbidding the alteration of an IMEI in and of itself without consideration to the intent or specific actions/activity being performed with the completion of that modification.
a prima facie case would likely be valid if we are talking about an actual cell phone as opposed to a hotspot or other data only terminal since there is little to no legitimate benefit to altering phone IMEIs (smart phone IMEIs are already one of the highest priority devices on carrier networks behind enterprise and first responder/mission critical nodes) outside of some very specific and niche scenarios;
but again, there COULD be legitimate reasons to do so and much of those are relatively easy to prove or disprove with information external to the person that is in question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You make good points. The key term is "access device," which was amended by legislation fairly recently to include tablets, cell phones, desktop computers, laptops, etc. I certainly agree that there are legitimate reasons as to why device identifiers would need to be modified. Correct, while there is not a statute that expressly prohibits alteration of IMEI/MEID numbers, I am merely outlining the federal statutes by which the government prosecutes such offenses. Similarly, for example. the Commonwealth of Kentucky does not have a statute prohibiting vehicular homicide. So there is no statute expressly saying that you can't go out and drive recklessly and kill people. However, such offenses are prosecuted under the manslaughter or wanton murder statutes. Changing an IMEI can get you prosecuted under the federal statute prohibiting the counterfeiting of an access device. I'm by no means saying that Homeland Security is coming after anybody changing an IMEI. But what I am saying is that federal prosecutors can technically charge an offender. I don't personally know of anybody who has been charged merely for altering device identifiers in the prima facie context. The US government most likely prosecutes only those offenders who have acted with nefarious or malicious intent, such as trafficking in cloned cell phones and the like. But again, my only point is that it is technically possible.
You and I appear to be on the same page on this topic. The only debate has been semantics it seems, whereas we are both correct on the points we are making.