Related
i was thinking of telling sprint that i lost my phone so that i can get a new one to use for work but while still keeping mine to use as a toy.Would they be able to simply track my phone and get me for fraud?
Thats not a appropriate question on XDA as its illegal to do fraud! No they wont be able to track your phone!
mohamedhussain1995 said:
Thats not a appropriate question on XDA as its illegal to do fraud! No they wont be able to track your phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would they give you a new phone, just because you lost yours ?
Your sim card does however, register on the network when ever you connect (ismi # ) as does your imei #. So you would never be able to use either on a network again. Also if they even suspect fraud, they can charge your account the full amount of the phone , several hundreds of dollars, and suspend your service. And until you settle the bill with Sprint, you will be denied service on any other carrier, because the bill with Sprint will go on your credit report.
That is of course unless you spend several thousands of dollars in legal fees fighting a billion dollar company trying to prove that you didn't do something, that you , in fact, did do.
ummm.. i presume he is under warranty; like me. in the UK if i lose my phone it gets replaced by the same model if it aint found within 12 hours and the stolen phone gets black listed but if you read carefully he mentioned 'as a toy'
Please make sense.
While I respect the "interest" anyone might have to avoid costs, one should not do so "at any cost", particularly at the cost of one's integrity. I have a rule I created for just such a postulation "do not spend your life looking for short-cuts and later standing around complaining when life short-changes you." (Brooks II, Leonard W., The Art of Being ©2007) Notwithstanding this user's inquiry being wrong on all sorts of levels, including legal, it is sufficient that this user ask himself or herself whether this is the "right" thing to do. I think the "gut" won't lie in this case and properly guide his or her actions. Then, there's the old rule I teach my children: "Just because you 'can' do something, does not mean that you 'should'".
To those that weighed in on this question in a manner of response:
I strongly discourage the statement of legal conclusions or speculations regarding punishments as a matter of law. It is contradictory and sends mixed messages to all the users when such speculations are thrown about while also coupled with an answer to the querying user's question. (e.g. This is an inappropriate forum for your question on how to rob a bank because bank robbery is illegal and you could go to jail, p.s. rob an ATM instead because if you get caught you'll do less jail time).
In these forums, it is sufficient to state (preferably citing to an internal xda-developers rule), that "this question is not appropriate to the forum." Alternatively, if xda were to lack such an internal policy rule (I seem to recall it does not lack such a rule) one could simply state the same and re-direct the inquiring user to his or her wireless contract which also provides clear guidance on this point (and yes, I read them (line for line)).
Nevertheless, I also don't think it is good form to make them feel completely like a heel for having asked the question in the first instance. After all, whether it is technology, law, relationships, or our own life experience, most of us know "just enough to make us dangerous".
So I've got a discussion thats bugged me for ages. I've always wondered about bad IMEI's/ESN's. Phones that cannot be used because they are reported stolen
It has a great purpose, It's like if someone stole your car, the car nolonger can start(bad analogy, don't laugh). But it leaves me with something that really really bugs me
Now what happens to people who legitimately buy devices second hand from original owners and such and then the original owner decides to be a you know what and blacklist the device? Or worse, what happens then to all of these devices in their after life? We now have a pile of useless phones that there seems to be no procedure to ever unblacklist these devices... thats the part that sickens me. We literally are rendering useless perfectly good phones that have the ability to be reused, be it the device is sent to the manufacturer first for refurbishing, the original owner gets the device back into their possession. I just feel there so many phones out there that are rendered useless when they are really expensive pieces of equipment... I Know there's always "changing the IMEI" but we aren't going the illegal route here.
Anyone else have feedback, Idk why it just gives me this feeling of being very wasteful.
XDA simply doesn't want to dabble in any "grey" areas. There may be legitimate/legal reasons for changing an IMEI. Most (or at least many) cases, the reasons aren't legitimate or legal. So, to avoid any confusion (or liability), discussion is prohibited. Similarly, certain "patcher" apps. Lots of legitimate uses, like back-ups/restores, root app removal, etc. But also lots of illegitimate uses. So XDA takes the blanket stance of not discussing such apps. It saves them from any hassle of legal/ethical issues, and alleviates the moderating staff from sorting out the fraction of legitimate questions from the dubious questions, lies, damned lies, and flat-out admissions of nefariousness.
If you buy a phone without doing your research into its IMEI or its unlock status, then I think it's your own damn fault for getting burned. Just my opinion. If you're asking about changing IMEI, then either you screwed up in that regard, or you've knowingly purchased a phone with a bad IMEI (buying a "parts" phone off eBay or craigslist), or are the cause of it having a bad IMEI itself (failing to fulfill a contract agreement). Regardless of the reason, even if it's innocently/ignorantly getting burned by an unscrupulous seller, such discussion is barred from XDA because of those other concerns.
My exact question is at the end more than anything, I see this being wasteful of phones? If a device is blacklisted for being "stolen" but is later found by the original owner? Then what? Still a dead device? I just think there's hundreds of good phones out there that could still be used even if they are found or returned or by who knows what means end up on the service providers desk cause someone found it and sent it to the police or something and it's reunited with it's owner...
You get where I'm going with this?
I SPECIFICALLY STATED CHANING IMEI's, HOW-TO's, and such are NOT to be discussed here. I even said this was a discussion, not a Help me thread... Sorry I feel just like you didn't read my op :/
to make it more basic, I think the current system is super inefficent and wasteful and there must be better solutions out there or some future legal way to deal with unblacklisting phones(i.e. original owner finds phone, goes to carrier, proves their identity with an ID and clearly the carrier can look up the account and devices)
Good afternoon mods, I'm sorry but I had to open a thread about this topic again.
It's absolutely not illegal to change your IMEI in most of the world. For instance, it's completely legal in the entirety of the US (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mobile_Equipment_Identity#IMEI_and_the_law).
As far as I know, the only known law in the whole of Europe (referring to the continent) that makes it illegal is in the UK and it's only illegal if you don't have the manufacturer permission. If you do, it's legal (see See 3.b https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/31/section/1). And it's perfectly possible to obtain such permissions from some manufacturers.
There is one specific German law making it illegal if and only if IMEI change is done in the context of tampering with evidence after a crime. And not before if it's not tampering with evidence.
While I do understand IMEI change could be illegal (citation needed?) in some rather few authoritarian regimes like China or even India. It's absolutely not illegal (yet) in most of the democratic world including the US, the UK (if you have permission from the manufacturer) and the EU. But it would be a bit ironic to ban this based on the laws of such regimes as they probably wouldn't allow rooting/jailbreaking either.
I also do understand IMEI change is probably against the ToS of many mobile operators but there is a very large gap between violating ToS and violating the law.
In brief, there are certainly in my opinion not enough of those place (yet) to justify a blanket censorship of this topic when it's also clearly an important privacy issue and that Apps/Operators/Manufacturers and indeed authoritarian law enforcement are using the IMEI to track users and also to track dissidents/protesters (see BLM, see Kashmir, see Hong Kong, see Lebanon, see Belarus, ...)
I would like to kindly request mods to provide a citation of this being illegal before applying such a blanket ban.
This is not a troll at all. There have been numerous threads about this topic on XDA and this is a recurring issue of mods seemingly thinking this is illegal when it's not. The whole perceived illegality of IMEI change is in almost all cases hearsay without any legal base.
Thank you kindly for your consideration and hopefully you won't ban me for this.
(Just to be clear, this topic is not about asking a way to change IMEI but asking the mods to provide citations about the illegality of IMEI change when censoring such threads)
I can't think of a legitimate reason why someone would need to change their IMEI number unless they are doing something shady.
Regardless of if the process itself is legal or not, the reasons why you would need to do it are most likely not legal. I'm sure that's why it falls under the "Don't get us into trouble." rule on here.
byAidan said:
I can't think of a legitimate reason why someone would need to change their IMEI number unless they are doing something shady.
Regardless of if the process itself is legal or not, the reasons why you would need to do it are most likely not legal. I'm sure that's why it falls under the "Don't get us into trouble." rule on here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for your answer.
The same reasoning could be used for MAC address randomization or for any other privacy feature such as XPrivacy or Magisk Hide ... Yet those are fine. All the banks and some apps (Netflix) will also argue you have no reason to root/jailbreak and subsequently hide the root/jailbreak if you're not doing shady things.
The same reasoning could be used for VPN/Tor users or those who use private DNS over TLS/HTTPS. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear?
A good legitimate reason is for instance that all Banking Apps (and many others) require "Phone permission" which allows them to read the IMEI. This allows them to track you with an unchangeable UID. A much better UID than any other tracking ID generated by the OS.
Another good legitimate reason besides avoiding commercial tracking is to make illegal dragnet surveillance a bit less effective.
And last but not least, it can help people stay alive under highly oppressive regimes ...
But I'm not arguing to ethically accept something illegal. I'm arguing to not ethically reject something perfectly legal using a wrong reasoning such as its supposed illegality.
I don't see any legitimate reason for Apps/Operators/Manufacturers to be able to track users using unchangeable UIDs such as the IMEI. And again ... it's absolutely not illegal so why make it illegal or shady?
Sure it can be used for shady things ... But this is valid for anything. IMHO Shady people won't use this anyway, they'll just use burner phones. Why bother wasting time with IMEI change ...
In the end, fair enough ... XDA is of course not a public space in itself and they're free to moderate the way they want. I'm just arguing that mods shouldn't use the "It's illegal" reasoning when removing those topics.
Instead they should just say "We think it's too shady and we don't like it ... even if it's legal" ... But stating it's illegal is just factually incorrect in most of the world.
byAidan said:
I can't think of a legitimate reason why someone would need to change their IMEI number unless they are doing something shady.
Regardless of if the process itself is legal or not, the reasons why you would need to do it are most likely not legal. I'm sure that's why it falls under the "Don't get us into trouble." rule on here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a rebuttal if may.
The act of changing an IMEI in itself is not legal. I'm also quite sure there are valid and legal reasons to do so. If the reasons were illegal then the act would be, too.
Also. It is not reasonable to throw out a blanket and say that everyone that would want to do this is up to something shady. Most people are decent, to label everyone as having nefarious intentions is counter-productive.
Just my humble opinion.....
Sent from my IN2025 using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------
One more comment. Legal or not is not the issue here. The forum has rules in order to post here. One of them is related legal/illegal activity. Since this is a public forum accessable around the world there could be users from a country where this topic is not legal. For that reason XDA is well within their right to ban this particular subject matter and a few others, too.
Sent from my IN2025 using Tapatalk
hurlube said:
Good afternoon mods, I'm sorry but I had to open a thread about this topic again.
...
Thank you kindly for your consideration and hopefully you won't ban me for this.
(Just to be clear, this topic is not about asking a way to change IMEI but asking the mods to provide citations about the illegality of IMEI change when censoring such threads)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@hurlube First, please allow me to apologise that it really took a long time until I recognised this thread - and only by accident. XDA has not only 10+M members, it also hosts 3.5M+ threads with 78+M posts. If you count the number of moderators e.g. here and further consider that all moderators are volunteers and do this "job" for free besides their real life, real family and friends, real business and profession, I hope you can understand that there's no possibility at all to actively every thread and post if moderators' support, assistance or guidance is requested somewhere. We clearly depend on the single and all XDA members is this matter.
It's very unlikely that a moderator becomes aware of e.g. your thread unless a member reports the thread or a post via the report function or you mention or quote a moderator (like I did with you @hurlube). Another possibility is certainly a PM to a moderator but due to the reasons mentioned above it might be that a PM rests in a moderator's inbox unacted for days or weeks.
Now to the subject of this thread itself... Neither I nor my team mates say that the change or the edit of an IMEI is illegal everywhere. If you look at e.g. my post here, I stated with reference to rule no. 9 of the XDA Forum Rules:
Change/edit of IMEI is a legal offence in quite a few of countries; hence discussions or support in this respect is not allowed on XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't say that change or edit of IMEI is illegal everywhere. There're quite a lot of things that are legal and even encouraged in some countries while being illegal in other countries like freedom of speech and opinion, the right to demonstrate, suicide and active, passive or indirect euthanasia. I think I could most likely extend this list endlessly. Some countries protect authorship, copyright and ownership while in other countries even official agencies support their violation or plagiarism.
I think it's obviously difficult for a private website in the world wide web to follow a right and consistent way. XDA was founded back in 2003 by developers for developers (see xda-developers: The History -Part One-), and I believe this is still the trait of XDA. Allow me to quote the XDA Forum Rules:
XDA-Developers is based on the principle of sharing to transmit knowledge. This is the cornerstone of our site. Our members and developers freely share their experience, knowledge, and finished works with the rest of the community to promote growth within the developer community, and to encourage those still learning to become better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We try to support developers and defend their ownership, while simultaneously enforcing GPL and the requirement to give credits when due, and we don't accept warez at all.
On the other hand, we don't want to lose sight of all other XDA members and users for whom we want to provide a platform to ask for help and support, to share opinions and experiences in a friendly, civil and respectful environment.
In order to implement above principles, this private website or platform has brought its own and already quoted forum rules into effect. And regarding the change or the edit of IMEI the XDA stance is like stated in my above linked post: We do not allow any kind of IMEI editing! However, if it's about restoring original IMEI/EFS that's not considered editing/changing hence allowed. And we also allow discussion and support regarding IMEI spoofing or masking as long as it happens on software level and the actual hard-coded board IMEI isn't tampered with. Thus it's allowed to post apps or (Exposed Framework) add-ons with this function that many use due to privacy concerns. But again, for sure we don't accept talks about using it for illegal purpose.
I hope I was able to clarify XDA's stance in this matter. And also allow me a very personal but very important remark to me: I do not censor any thread, and I've never observed that any of my moderator fellows does. But we clean a thread or post from anything that does not comply with the forum rules and always explain to the member whose post was affected the reason why we did that; this occurs most of the time privately by PM's but occasionally also publicly by an announcement in the thread. I really hope that you don't call this censorship!
Last but not least - and I apologise that I've to enforce our rules now as I became aware of your thread: The thread is obviously not related to the Oneplus 8 Pro i.e. I'm moving the thread to the General discussions section.
Stay safe and stay healthy!
Regards
Oswald Boelcke
Thank you very much for your answer Oswald.
hurlube said:
Good afternoon mods, I'm sorry but I had to open a thread about this topic again.
It's absolutely not illegal to change your IMEI in most of the world. For instance, it's completely legal in the entirety of the US (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mobile_Equipment_Identity#IMEI_and_the_law).
As far as I know, the only known law in the whole of Europe (referring to the continent) that makes it illegal is in the UK and it's only illegal if you don't have the manufacturer permission. If you do, it's legal (see See 3.b https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/31/section/1). And it's perfectly possible to obtain such permissions from some manufacturers.
There is one specific German law making it illegal if and only if IMEI change is done in the context of tampering with evidence after a crime. And not before if it's not tampering with evidence.
While I do understand IMEI change could be illegal (citation needed?) in some rather few authoritarian regimes like China or even India. It's absolutely not illegal (yet) in most of the democratic world including the US, the UK (if you have permission from the manufacturer) and the EU. But it would be a bit ironic to ban this based on the laws of such regimes as they probably wouldn't allow rooting/jailbreaking either.
I also do understand IMEI change is probably against the ToS of many mobile operators but there is a very large gap between violating ToS and violating the law.
In brief, there are certainly in my opinion not enough of those place (yet) to justify a blanket censorship of this topic when it's also clearly an important privacy issue and that Apps/Operators/Manufacturers and indeed authoritarian law enforcement are using the IMEI to track users and also to track dissidents/protesters (see BLM, see Kashmir, see Hong Kong, see Lebanon, see Belarus, ...)
I would like to kindly request mods to provide a citation of this being illegal before applying such a blanket ban.
This is not a troll at all. There have been numerous threads about this topic on XDA and this is a recurring issue of mods seemingly thinking this is illegal when it's not. The whole perceived illegality of IMEI change is in almost all cases hearsay without any legal base.
Thank you kindly for your consideration and hopefully you won't ban me for this.
(Just to be clear, this topic is not about asking a way to change IMEI but asking the mods to provide citations about the illegality of IMEI change when censoring such threads)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very odd. I'm an attorney who practices criminal law in Kentucky and Tennessee, specializing in appellate and posts conviction writs. I have two clients who are serving substantial prison sentences for allegedly spoofing the IMEI/MEID device identifiers on dozens of mobile devices for the purpose of bypassing blacklisting restrictions imposed as a result of the devices having been reported stolen, as well as some allegations of subscriber fraud. To give you an idea of just how substantial the sentences are, both defendants were middle-aged at the time of sentencing, and it is very likely.that neither of them will ever make it to get out of prison.
I'm sure my clients would love to know the precedent you are relying upon in your position that this practice is fully legal in the US. Such a precedent would surely invalidate their convictions and exonerate them both. Let me guess, your legal expertise and position are based on some jargon you read on Google. Everybody is a lawyer who has internet access these days.
Federal law and statutes enacted in all 50 states explicitly prohibit concealing the identity of a mobile phone by way of altering, modifying, spoofing or otherwise changing the device's unique identifiers. While some state statutes require an element of intent for conviction, most prohibit the practice regardless of mens rea (criminal culpability). In fact, the practice is considered so serious, the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Secret Service investigate and initiate prosecution of such offenses on the federal level. The involvement of these two agencies is a surefire indication that this very subject rises to the level of national security. You couldn't possibly be any more incorrect on this subject. Spreading such blatantly false information on a platform such as XDA is poison. I'm sure this BS has been read by a multitude of members and visitors.
You made reference to wanting citation of a specific law or authority prohibiting the practice of changing the unique identifiers of a mobile phone. I would direct you to the federal statute
18 U.S. Code § 1029Read the statute, its annotations, revisions, amendments and progeny very carefully. This is the statute the US Attorney's office will use to crucify you in the event you are caught.
For clarification, there is nothing illegal in rewriting an IMEI/MEID number that has been invalidated, wiped, corrupted or otherwise damaged on a mobile phone. This occurs quite often during procedures such as flashing firmware to a device without first making a backup of the /efs or /nvdata partitions. SP Flash Tool is notorious for wiping device identifiers, MAC addresses and other values unique to the device. It is often necessary to rewrite or fix these components in order to regain network, Bluetooth and WiFi functionality. I am referring specifically to changing device identifiers in a manner that would mask or conceal the device's true identity.
Viva La Android said:
Very odd. I'm an attorney who practices criminal law in Kentucky and Tennessee, specializing in appellate and posts conviction writs. I have two clients who are serving substantial prison sentences for allegedly spoofing the IMEI/MEID device identifiers on dozens of mobile devices for the purpose of bypassing blacklisting restrictions imposed as a result of the devices having been reported stolen, as well as some allegations of subscriber fraud. To give you an idea of just how substantial the sentences are, both defendants were middle-aged at the time of sentencing, and it is very likely.that neither of them will ever make it to get out of prison.
I'm sure my clients would love to know the precedent you are relying upon in your position that this practice is fully legal in the US. Such a precedent would surely invalidate their convictions and exonerate them both. Let me guess, your legal expertise and position are based on some jargon you read on Google. Everybody is a lawyer who has internet access these days.
Federal law and statutes enacted in all 50 states explicitly prohibit concealing the identity of a mobile phone by way of altering, modifying, spoofing or otherwise changing the device's unique identifiers. While some state statutes require an element of intent for conviction, most prohibit the practice regardless of mens rea (criminal culpability). In fact, the practice is considered so serious, the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Secret Service investigate and initiate prosecution of such offenses on the federal level. The involvement of these two agencies is a surefire indication that this very subject rises to the level of national security. You couldn't possibly be any more incorrect on this subject. Spreading such blatantly false information on a platform such as XDA is poison. I'm sure this BS has been read by a multitude of members and visitors.
You made reference to wanting citation of a specific law or authority prohibiting the practice of changing the unique identifiers of a mobile phone. I would direct you to the federal statute
18 U.S. Code § 1029Read the statute, its annotations, revisions, amendments and progeny very carefully. This is the statute the US Attorney's office will use to crucify you in the event you are caught.
For clarification, there is nothing illegal in rewriting an IMEI/MEID number that has been invalidated, wiped, corrupted or otherwise damaged on a mobile phone. This occurs quite often during procedures such as flashing firmware to a device without first making a backup of the /efs or /nvdata partitions. SP Flash Tool is notorious for wiping device identifiers, MAC addresses and other values unique to the device. It is often necessary to rewrite or fix these components in order to regain network, Bluetooth and WiFi functionality. I am referring specifically to changing device identifiers in a manner that would mask or conceal the device's true identity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow.....
so i'm not sure which is the case and which is worse, that you're a supposed attorney and miss-read the previous statements or that your a supposed attorney and don't understand the inherent difference of intent in 1029 versus what is being talked about here.
i don't mean offense by this, just very, VERY surprised at your whole statement here.
fair bit to unpack here to bear with it for a bit;
just about every causal line in 1029 is prefaced by "knowingly and with intent to defraud..."
obviously your clients intended to use stolen mobile devices and use them for some purpose, either that's cloning another IMEI or simply changing the IMEI to activate them on a new service line.
both ARE illegal acts since the originating device was a stolen device, this in turn then brings into effect 1029 (and also 18 U.S.C. § 2315). since they likely knew it was stolen and even if they used the excuse that they didn't know, after finding out it was blacklisted they went through the further trouble of changing the IMEIs instead of doing the right thing and reporting the devices and the seller which then further calls into question the legality of the means they came into possession of the devices as well as pointing more toward their intent to defraud the cellular carrier.
both those factors i'm sure played a HEAVY role in their convictions.
in a scenario where a legal owner of a device, that they purchased themselves wants to change the IMEI, they can (in the usa), one instance of a LEGAL reason to do so is to prevent undisclosed throttling by the cellular carrier and this is done quite regularly by carriers to varying degrees and regions.
for instance, they will sell you 50gb of hotspot usage but then drastically throttle your connection speeds of the devices behind that hotspot, all the while never disclosing that fact to the customer, often even after being confronted on the subject they will even state that they only throttle in times of high congestion (an easily disproved excuse, if the speed is significantly slower on a tethered device while the cellular device itself has massively better speeds at all times then it's not congestion)
the customer has paid for hotspot usage, not hotspot usage at a reduced speed. (though some are disclosed, if only in the contract text itself, the customer would need to check this first)
changing the IMEI of a hotspot to that of say, a tablet that the person also owns for instance, would bypass that throttling and allow the customer to get the speeds that they have in fact paid for.
this is in fact what this type of modification is most commonly used for.
in this scenario there is no defrauding taking place, the customer is paying for a service that they are using on hardware that they have legally purchased and are taking actions simply to get what they have paid for and what the carrier agreed to provide them per the subscriber contract, neither 18 U.S.C. §1029 or 18 U.S.C. §2315 would come into effect or question, thus the action is perfectly legal.
since as i'm sure you're aware, in the USA, unless there is a law that SPECIFICALLY states an action is illegal, then said action is LEGAL.
the law is restrictive not permissive; people don't need permission to go outside and take a walk down the road, it is not forbidden by law therefore it is legal.
as others have said, most criminals will just buy burner $50 phones from walmart rather than go through all this trouble to change the imei.
In
Mechcondrid said:
wow.....
so i'm not sure which is the case and which is worse, that you're a supposed attorney and miss-read the previous statements or that your a supposed attorney and don't understand the inherent difference of intent in 1029 versus what is being talked about here.
i don't mean offense by this, just very, VERY surprised at your whole statement here.
fair bit to unpack here to bear with it for a bit;
just about every causal line in 1029 is prefaced by "knowingly and with intent to defraud..."
obviously your clients intended to use stolen mobile devices and use them for some purpose, either that's cloning another IMEI or simply changing the IMEI to activate them on a new service line.
both ARE illegal acts since the originating device was a stolen device, this in turn then brings into effect 1029 (and also 18 U.S.C. § 2315). since they likely knew it was stolen and even if they used the excuse that they didn't know, after finding out it was blacklisted they went through the further trouble of changing the IMEIs instead of doing the right thing and reporting the devices and the seller which then further calls into question the legality of the means they came into possession of the devices as well as pointing more toward their intent to defraud the cellular carrier.
both those factors i'm sure played a HEAVY role in their convictions.
in a scenario where a legal owner of a device, that they purchased themselves wants to change the IMEI, they can (in the usa), one instance of a LEGAL reason to do so is to prevent undisclosed throttling by the cellular carrier and this is done quite regularly by carriers to varying degrees and regions.
for instance, they will sell you 50gb of hotspot usage but then drastically throttle your connection speeds of the devices behind that hotspot, all the while never disclosing that fact to the customer, often even after being confronted on the subject they will even state that they only throttle in times of high congestion (an easily disproved excuse, if the speed is significantly slower on a tethered device while the cellular device itself has massively better speeds at all times then it's not congestion)
the customer has paid for hotspot usage, not hotspot usage at a reduced speed. (though some are disclosed, if only in the contract text itself, the customer would need to check this first)
changing the IMEI of a hotspot to that of say, a tablet that the person also owns for instance, would bypass that throttling and allow the customer to get the speeds that they have in fact paid for.
this is in fact what this type of modification is most commonly used for.
in this scenario there is no defrauding taking place, the customer is paying for a service that they are using on hardware that they have legally purchased and are taking actions simply to get what they have paid for and what the carrier agreed to provide them per the subscriber contract, neither 18 U.S.C. §1029 or 18 U.S.C. §2315 would come into effect or question, thus the action is perfectly legal.
since as i'm sure you're aware, in the USA, unless there is a law that SPECIFICALLY states an action is illegal, then said action is LEGAL.
the law is restrictive not permissive; people don't need permission to go outside and take a walk down the road, it is not forbidden by law therefore it is legal.
as others have said, most criminals will just buy burner $50 phones from walmart rather than go through all this trouble to change the imei
Mechcondrid said:
wow.....
so i'm not sure which is the case and which is worse, that you're a supposed attorney and miss-read the previous statements or that your a supposed attorney and don't understand the inherent difference of intent in 1029 versus what is being talked about here.
i don't mean offense by this, just very, VERY surprised at your whole statement here.
fair bit to unpack here to bear with it for a bit;
just about every causal line in 1029 is prefaced by "knowingly and with intent to defraud..."
obviously your clients intended to use stolen mobile devices and use them for some purpose, either that's cloning another IMEI or simply changing the IMEI to activate them on a new service line.
both ARE illegal acts since the originating device was a stolen device, this in turn then brings into effect 1029 (and also 18 U.S.C. § 2315). since they likely knew it was stolen and even if they used the excuse that they didn't know, after finding out it was blacklisted they went through the further trouble of changing the IMEIs instead of doing the right thing and reporting the devices and the seller which then further calls into question the legality of the means they came into possession of the devices as well as pointing more toward their intent to defraud the cellular carrier.
both those factors i'm sure played a HEAVY role in their convictions.
in a scenario where a legal owner of a device, that they purchased themselves wants to change the IMEI, they can (in the usa), one instance of a LEGAL reason to do so is to prevent undisclosed throttling by the cellular carrier and this is done quite regularly by carriers to varying degrees and regions.
for instance, they will sell you 50gb of hotspot usage but then drastically throttle your connection speeds of the devices behind that hotspot, all the while never disclosing that fact to the customer, often even after being confronted on the subject they will even state that they only throttle in times of high congestion (an easily disproved excuse, if the speed is significantly slower on a tethered device while the cellular device itself has massively better speeds at all times then it's not congestion)
the customer has paid for hotspot usage, not hotspot usage at a reduced speed. (though some are disclosed, if only in the contract text itself, the customer would need to check this first)
changing the IMEI of a hotspot to that of say, a tablet that the person also owns for instance, would bypass that throttling and allow the customer to get the speeds that they have in fact paid for.
this is in fact what this type of modification is most commonly used for.
in this scenario there is no defrauding taking place, the customer is paying for a service that they are using on hardware that they have legally purchased and are taking actions simply to get what they have paid for and what the carrier agreed to provide them per the subscriber contract, neither 18 U.S.C. §1029 or 18 U.S.C. §2315 would come into effect or question, thus the action is perfectly legal.
since as i'm sure you're aware, in the USA, unless there is a law that SPECIFICALLY states an action is illegal, then said action is LEGAL.
the law is restrictive not permissive; people don't need permission to go outside and take a walk down the road, it is not forbidden by law therefore it is legal.
as others have said, most criminals will just buy burner $50 phones from walmart rather than go through all this trouble to change the imei.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed you can change your IMEI if you are a device owner. If you get caught, however, you will be prosecuted. I see you read the language of the statute but failed to read the annotations, commentary, amendments and progeny. Perhaps do your full research on the applicable law and then try to debate the substantive language. My interpretation of the statute is not at fault. I have been litigating this statute for a number of years and know full well what it prohibits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@Mechcondrid, there's a bit more involved in litigation than citing statutory elements. Did you happen to research the federal legal definition of "access device?"
You and I are on the same page in terms of the required mens rea (criminal culpability, i.e. intent) in the context of securing a conviction for access device fraud. The prohibition you're not seeing is the mere act of altering or modifying a device's unique identifiers. This act creates a prima facie case of possessing an unauthorized/counterfeit access device, without demonstrating the mens rea of intent to commit a crime. I'll be glad to hash this out in more detail when I get a few minutes free. So, the question arises, would a person be automatically prosecuted for changing the IMEI/MEID of a mobile device? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? My point is, that technically speaking, the individual has committed a federal crime within the scope of a prima facie context, by altering the identity of the device, in and of itself. The US Supreme Court expounded upon the contextual meaning of prima facie in the case of Virginia v Black. 538 U.S. 343 (2003). For all intents and purposes of this subject matter, prima facie means evidence which on its first appearance is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question, i.e., altering the unique identifiers of a mobile device -- such as a cell phone. But again, when I get a few minutes free I'll hash out the precise points and authorities in the matter sub judice.
Viva La Android said:
@Mechcondrid, there's a bit more involved in litigation than citing statutory elements. This is your free lesson: did you happen to research the federal legal definition of "access device?"
You and I are on the same page in terms of the required mens rea (criminal culpability, i.e. intent) in the context of securing a conviction for access device fraud. The prohibition you're not seeing is the mere act of altering or modifying a device's unique identifiers. This act creates a prima facie case of possessing an unauthorized/counterfeit access device, without demonstrating the mens rea of intent to commit a crime. I'll be glad to hash this out in more detail when I get a few minutes free. So, the question arises, would a person be automatically prosecuted for changing the IMEI/MEID of a mobile device? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? My point is, that technically speaking, the individual has committed a federal crime within the scope of a prima facie context, by altering the identity of the device, in and of itself. The US Supreme Court expounded upon the contextual meaning of prima facie in the case of Virginia v Black. 538 U.S. 343 (2003). For all intents and purposes of this subject matter, prima facie means evidence which on its first appearance is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question, i.e., altering the unique identifiers of a mobile device -- such as a cell phone. But again, when I get a few minutes free I'll hash out the precise points and authorities in the matter sub judice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
actually, yes i am familiar with the federal definition of it; I actually design, build and implement custom IoT CnC (command and control) systems, of which one connection option offered is embedded cellular modules (other options include point to point microwave links as well as satcom links like the U-Blox system).
I do this as part of my job for a DoD contractor, so reading up on the compliance requirements of it is basically required to design and sell these systems unless i'd like the company to run afoul of a number of DFARs regulations/clauses and various federal contracting laws/regulations.
i have to even go as far as what specific brands and SoCs i use in a design depending on the customer, contractual context and if it's DoD related or not.
i research and read far more about the legality of things than you would ever expect a system architect to do.
you are coming into the scenario under the presumption that the IMEI is only ever altered (or at least the majority of the time) for illegal or duplicitous means, while that is a possibility, equally a possibility (or even more likely since there is considerable effort and technical skill involved and criminals generally would want easier methods) is a legitimate reason to do so.
the assumption of prima facie evidence runs under the understanding that the particular action is distinctly common to allude to or point to the very likely commission of a crime and only in the absence of competing evidence.
even then it generally requires the prosecution to provide point by point evidence pointing to the confirmation or the support of the prima facie assumption.
someone gets caught with 5 lbs of marijuana (pre-decriminalization/legalization, but this is an apt example that happened quite a bit) and says it's for "personal use"; it's FAR more likely that amount was purchased with the intent to resell (prima facie) than it is that one person is going to go through 5 whole lbs of weed in any realistic amount of time.
i believe there is also the same kind of law concerning liquor reselling without a liquor license somewhere but the core concept remains the same.
a legal non-blacklisted device, active paid carrier account registered to the person in question, and the IMEI being from a device that is also legally owned by the same user and no other active device used on the network with that IMEI would all be competing points of evidence that are easily verifiable by both third parties and the carrier's own records in conjunction with various forms of proof from the person in question themselves.
in one non-DoD customer scenario (that i've actually had to deal with) a cat 18 lte module we had deployed and provisioned would continuously get throttled and deprioritized as a type of hotspot device when it was in fact a single node communications module due to some issue on the carriers backend management in the regional tower software (passadena, ca area to be specific), the module does not move and is simply in a location where running conventional wired or directed microwave networking infrastructure is both financially and physically infeasible; despite working with the carrier's enterprise support, every time we would get the modem back online to realistically usable speeds, about 72-84 hours later the module would again get deprioritized and return to sub megabit speeds on the upstream; this was a implementation that needed near-realtime data relay (less than 1 minute between data collection and upload/reception) which those kind of abysmal upload speeds completely blew out of the water.
after spending a cumulative 80 man hours attempting to work and troubleshoot with the carrier via normal support channels we decided to alter the imei using a cellular capable samsung tablet we purchased specifically to scavenge the IMEI.
The actual tablet itself is not and was never activated on any network and to this day sits on the server room shelf gathering dust and was never even turned on and had it's first boot setup performed.
i'd honestly be very surprised if the tablet is even still functional considering it's sat there for years in a discharged state.
this was a legal purchase, is not a duplicated hardware node on any carrier network and is being used to access a legally and properly registered service that is being paid for by the registered account owner.
so: no fraud, no cloned device on any network and everything registered as it should be regarding the account owners, simply what amounts to a system repair using IMEI modification.
to date (going on roughly 3 years now) this fix has been rock solid and the only service interruption has been when the local power supply failed after the NEMA enclosure gasket had gotten damaged from a local tech's improper closure of the lid.
there is no specific law (in the USA) forbidding the alteration of an IMEI in and of itself without consideration to the intent or specific actions/activity being performed with the completion of that modification.
a prima facie case would likely be valid if we are talking about an actual cell phone as opposed to a hotspot or other data only terminal since there is little to no legitimate benefit to altering phone IMEIs (smart phone IMEIs are already one of the highest priority devices on carrier networks behind enterprise and first responder/mission critical nodes) outside of some very specific and niche scenarios;
but again, there COULD be legitimate reasons to do so and much of those are relatively easy to prove or disprove with information external to the person that is in question.
Mechcondrid said:
actually, yes i am familiar with the federal definition of it; I actually design, build and implement custom IoT CnC (command and control) systems, of which one connection option offered is embedded cellular modules (other options include point to point microwave links as well as satcom links like the U-Blox system).
I do this as part of my job for a DoD contractor, so reading up on the compliance requirements of it is basically required to design and sell these systems unless i'd like the company to run afoul of a number of DFARs regulations/clauses and various federal contracting laws/regulations.
i have to even go as far as what specific brands and SoCs i use in a design depending on the customer, contractual context and if it's DoD related or not.
i research and read far more about the legality of things than you would ever expect a system architect to do.
you are coming into the scenario under the presumption that the IMEI is only ever altered (or at least the majority of the time) for illegal or duplicitous means, while that is a possibility, equally a possibility (or even more likely since there is considerable effort and technical skill involved and criminals generally would want easier methods) is a legitimate reason to do so.
the assumption of prima facie evidence runs under the understanding that the particular action is distinctly common to allude to or point to the very likely commission of a crime and only in the absence of competing evidence.
even then it generally requires the prosecution to provide point by point evidence pointing to the confirmation or the support of the prima facie assumption.
someone gets caught with 5 lbs of marijuana (pre-decriminalization/legalization, but this is an apt example that happened quite a bit) and says it's for "personal use"; it's FAR more likely that amount was purchased with the intent to resell (prima facie) than it is that one person is going to go through 5 whole lbs of weed in any realistic amount of time.
i believe there is also the same kind of law concerning liquor reselling without a liquor license somewhere but the core concept remains the same.
a legal non-blacklisted device, active paid carrier account registered to the person in question, and the IMEI being from a device that is also legally owned by the same user and no other active device used on the network with that IMEI would all be competing points of evidence that are easily verifiable by both third parties and the carrier's own records in conjunction with various forms of proof from the person in question themselves.
in one non-DoD customer scenario (that i've actually had to deal with) a cat 18 lte module we had deployed and provisioned would continuously get throttled and deprioritized as a type of hotspot device when it was in fact a single node communications module due to some issue on the carriers backend management in the regional tower software (passadena, ca area to be specific), the module does not move and is simply in a location where running conventional wired or directed microwave networking infrastructure is both financially and physically infeasible; despite working with the carrier's enterprise support, every time we would get the modem back online to realistically usable speeds, about 72-84 hours later the module would again get deprioritized and return to sub megabit speeds on the upstream; this was a implementation that needed near-realtime data relay (less than 1 minute between data collection and upload/reception) which those kind of abysmal upload speeds completely blew out of the water.
after spending a cumulative 80 man hours attempting to work and troubleshoot with the carrier via normal support channels we decided to alter the imei using a cellular capable samsung tablet we purchased specifically to scavenge the IMEI.
The actual tablet itself is not and was never activated on any network and to this day sits on the server room shelf gathering dust and was never even turned on and had it's first boot setup performed.
i'd honestly be very surprised if the tablet is even still functional considering it's sat there for years in a discharged state.
this was a legal purchase, is not a duplicated hardware node on any carrier network and is being used to access a legally and properly registered service that is being paid for by the registered account owner.
so: no fraud, no cloned device on any network and everything registered as it should be regarding the account owners, simply what amounts to a system repair using IMEI modification.
to date (going on roughly 3 years now) this fix has been rock solid and the only service interruption has been when the local power supply failed after the NEMA enclosure gasket had gotten damaged from a local tech's improper closure of the lid.
there is no specific law (in the USA) forbidding the alteration of an IMEI in and of itself without consideration to the intent or specific actions/activity being performed with the completion of that modification.
a prima facie case would likely be valid if we are talking about an actual cell phone as opposed to a hotspot or other data only terminal since there is little to no legitimate benefit to altering phone IMEIs (smart phone IMEIs are already one of the highest priority devices on carrier networks behind enterprise and first responder/mission critical nodes) outside of some very specific and niche scenarios;
but again, there COULD be legitimate reasons to do so and much of those are relatively easy to prove or disprove with information external to the person that is in question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You make good points. The key term is "access device," which was amended by legislation fairly recently to include tablets, cell phones, desktop computers, laptops, etc. I certainly agree that there are legitimate reasons as to why device identifiers would need to be modified. Correct, while there is not a statute that expressly prohibits alteration of IMEI/MEID numbers, I am merely outlining the federal statutes by which the government prosecutes such offenses. Similarly, for example. the Commonwealth of Kentucky does not have a statute prohibiting vehicular homicide. So there is no statute expressly saying that you can't go out and drive recklessly and kill people. However, such offenses are prosecuted under the manslaughter or wanton murder statutes. Changing an IMEI can get you prosecuted under the federal statute prohibiting the counterfeiting of an access device. I'm by no means saying that Homeland Security is coming after anybody changing an IMEI. But what I am saying is that federal prosecutors can technically charge an offender. I don't personally know of anybody who has been charged merely for altering device identifiers in the prima facie context. The US government most likely prosecutes only those offenders who have acted with nefarious or malicious intent, such as trafficking in cloned cell phones and the like. But again, my only point is that it is technically possible.
You and I appear to be on the same page on this topic. The only debate has been semantics it seems, whereas we are both correct on the points we are making.
Hey there,
A friend of mine purchased SG A52 4G from a dishonest re-seller who, by an odd quirk of fate, failed to mention it had originally been bought from a telecom provider on hire purchase. As you may presume the original buyer is not likely to pay the installments and as such my pal runs the risk of the deviced being blocked on a per-IMEI basis.
Do you by any chance know if there's any way around it and if so how to go about it? Should installing a custom ROM before the device gets blocked do the trick?
Return it or pay it off.
First off you misread my thread as I'm not a buyer..
There's no way to return the device as the dishonest seller has disappeared into thin air. Well, thanks for the very sage advice of paying it off. I'm ever so sure that if you bought a device and had already paid and it cost you a pretty penny then you would be willing to pay someone else's installments and pay for it twice. That helps! Thanks.
Altering the imei is illegal.
You'll get no help here to do that.
No sarcastic thanks needed... this was your own doing. Those are your two options.
Altering the imei or installing custom roms that render your warranty invalid are illegal yet there so many threads in this community describing the processes in detail . Hence the sarcastic thanks - apologies if I offended anyone - I didn't mean to do so.
And just for context and for the record - the phone was bought by a not-so-tech-savvy and gullible person but I'll just explain to her she can basically throw the device away and come to terms with losing something in the order of 200 quid.
Custom roms aren't illegal, they aren't supported by some manufacturers
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...
forum.xda-developers.com
The device COULD be blocked. Doesn't mean that it WILL be blocked. You can't change IMEI, it is not legal to do so. If the phone does get locked, tell your friend to go to the telecom shop and tell them exactly what happened! That would be the best solution.
Hey fellow Devs and Users in the Development Community,
I am debating on whether or not to file a Class Action Lawsuit against possibly BOTH Google and Verizon Wireless for not printing on the Manufactures Box that the BOOTLOADER CANNOT EVER BE UNLOCKED whether or NOT You CARRIER UNLOCK the Device after the (60) Days of purchase. This is something that should be either printed on the Box by Google or VZW should put a sticker on the Boxes before sale, letting us in the Development Community know before we purchase or are able to return the device within the 14 day return policy incase you missed the Fine Print that should be on said Box or the Sticker that VZW should put before Point-of-Sale.
The fact that you ask the Representative you purchase your device from, thinks you are talking about Carrier Unlock and dont know what a Bootloader even is, they state that "IT" can be Unlocked, meaning Carrier Unlocked. I have tried (2) devices BOTH Carrier Unlocked and neither will highlight OEM UNLOCKING in Developer Settings. I have seen many with screenshots of messages from VZW Reps saying that the Bootloader can be Unlocked Once the device is Carrier Unlocked. It has been confirmed in an email from a "Floor Manager" that the VZW Varient of the Pixels CANNOT EVER BE OEM UNLOCKED even after being CARRIER UNLOCKED in the following message, which will be escalated to a Department Supervisor next:
Hi Thomas,
Thank you for contacting the Google Support Team.
My name is Wilson H. and I am the Floor Manager here.
I have reviewed your case and understand that you are facing issues with the OEM unlocking of your Pixel device.
At Google, customer satisfaction is something we take very seriously and anything less than ensuring you are completely happy is unacceptable. In regards to your concern, after checking with all the resources and product specialists, I want to keep you informed that the Verizon locked pixel device's bootloader menu cannot be unlocked even if the sim unlock is enabled.
I also read your email in which you have mentioned that previously you are able to get it unlocked however, as of the new updates and services regulatory, it can not be unlocked from the boot loader menu. The device is functioning as intended.
I also came to know that you are looking for a replacement device which has an unlocked bootloader menu. I understand how important this feature must be for you however, we will not be able to provide you a replacement of an unlocked device as the devices can only be replaced with the same make & model and specifications.
I apologize but we will not be able to proceed in this term to help you with a replacement and request you to please reach out to the Verizon team again for further clarification regarding the same.
In case of any further queries or concerns, you can reach out to us.
Thanks!
WH
The Google Support Team
So if you have a Google Pixel 7 or 7 Pro or an earlier model that is FULLY Up to Date, You Can be apart of a Class Action Lawsuit against Google and/or Verizon Wireless for Misinforming us, the Unsatisfied Customers stuck with a VZW Model that can NEVER be OEM UNLOCKED Unless an Exploit is found, Sunshine DOES NOT WORK!
Please pass this on to other Verizon Wireless Pixel owners and either post your name or screen name so i can get a head count...
AndroidAddict420 said:
Hey fellow Devs and Users in the Development Community,
I am debating on whether or not to file a Class Action Lawsuit against possibly BOTH Google and Verizon Wireless for not printing on the Manufactures Box that the BOOTLOADER CANNOT EVER BE UNLOCKED whether or NOT You CARRIER UNLOCK the Device after the (60) Days of purchase. This is something that should be either printed on the Box by Google or VZW should put a sticker on the Boxes before sale, letting us in the Development Community know before we purchase or are able to return the device within the 14 day return policy incase you missed the Fine Print that should be on said Box or the Sticker that VZW should put before Point-of-Sale.
The fact that you ask the Representative you purchase your device from, thinks you are talking about Carrier Unlock and dont know what a Bootloader even is, they state that "IT" can be Unlocked, meaning Carrier Unlocked. I have tried (2) devices BOTH Carrier Unlocked and neither will highlight OEM UNLOCKING in Developer Settings. I have seen many with screenshots of messages from VZW Reps saying that the Bootloader can be Unlocked Once the device is Carrier Unlocked. It has been confirmed in an email from a "Floor Manager" that the VZW Varient of the Pixels CANNOT EVER BE OEM UNLOCKED even after being CARRIER UNLOCKED in the following message, which will be escalated to a Department Supervisor next:
Hi Thomas,
Thank you for contacting the Google Support Team.
My name is Wilson H. and I am the Floor Manager here.
I have reviewed your case and understand that you are facing issues with the OEM unlocking of your Pixel device.
At Google, customer satisfaction is something we take very seriously and anything less than ensuring you are completely happy is unacceptable. In regards to your concern, after checking with all the resources and product specialists, I want to keep you informed that the Verizon locked pixel device's bootloader menu cannot be unlocked even if the sim unlock is enabled.
I also read your email in which you have mentioned that previously you are able to get it unlocked however, as of the new updates and services regulatory, it can not be unlocked from the boot loader menu. The device is functioning as intended.
I also came to know that you are looking for a replacement device which has an unlocked bootloader menu. I understand how important this feature must be for you however, we will not be able to provide you a replacement of an unlocked device as the devices can only be replaced with the same make & model and specifications.
I apologize but we will not be able to proceed in this term to help you with a replacement and request you to please reach out to the Verizon team again for further clarification regarding the same.
In case of any further queries or concerns, you can reach out to us.
Thanks!
WH
The Google Support Team
So if you have a Google Pixel 7 or 7 Pro or an earlier model that is FULLY Up to Date, You Can be apart of a Class Action Lawsuit against Google and/or Verizon Wireless for Misinforming us, the Unsatisfied Customers stuck with a VZW Model that can NEVER be OEM UNLOCKED Unless an Exploit is found, Sunshine DOES NOT WORK!
Please pass this on to other Verizon Wireless Pixel owners and either post your name or screen name so i can get a head count...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're just going to let you unlock the bootloader, no one tries to push this even though it is federally illegal. But, you won't get anything but hate from this forum. In a few minutes you're going to have multiple "Recognized Developers" telling you it's impossible. Which only shows the level of talent on this platform. Anything is hackable, if you know what you are doing.
mavssubs said:
They're just going to let you unlock the bootloader, no one tries to push this even though it is federally illegal. But, you won't get anything but hate from this forum. In a few minutes you're going to have multiple "Recognized Developers" telling you it's impossible. Which only shows the level of talent on this platform. Anything is hackable, if you know what you are doing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If anything is hackable and someone can do it, the developers here would have done it by now. "The level of talent"? Please tell me of another website that has the level of talent that the developers on this site have, and also surpasses it. If it was hackable, someone on this site or another would have done it by now. If this site has a substandard level of talent, point me to a website where they have been able to hack into Verizon's unlock policy. No level of talent here? Then where is the talent to do this? It doesn't exist. There's no way. If there was you'd be able to provide a link to it.
Meanwhile, nobody on any website anywhere at all has been able to bypass it. I guess the "lack of talent" is world wide, not just on this site smh
xunholyx said:
If anything is hackable and someone can do it, the developers here would have done it by now. "The level of talent"? Please tell me of another website that has the level of talent that the developers on this site have, and also surpasses it. If it was hackable, someone on this site or another would have done it by now. If this site has a substandard level of talent, point me to a website where they have been able to hack into Verizon's unlock policy. No level of talent here? Then where is the talent to do this? It doesn't exist. There's no way. If there was you'd be able to provide a link to it.
Meanwhile, nobody on any website anywhere at all has been able to bypass it. I guess the "lack of talent" is world wide, not just on this site sm
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, the original exploit was patched obviously. You are missing the point of this thread. Do you want to be included or not is the question?
mavssubs said:
They're just going to let you unlock the bootloader, no one tries to push this even though it is federally illegal. But, you won't get anything but hate from this forum. In a few minutes you're going to have multiple "Recognized Developers" telling you it's impossible. Which only shows the level of talent on this platform. Anything is hackable, if you know what you are doing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not asking about whether or not it is hackable but the original exploit was patched from every Pixel from 3 or 4 and up. Do you want in or no?
AndroidAddict420 said:
Yea, the original exploit was patched obviously. You are missing the point of this thread. Do you want to be included or not is the question?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no way. The post I replied to said the devs here are weak. So I asked for a link to where the devs are better than here. There should be an exploit but there isn't. If there was we'd know about it by now, either on this site or another. There's no way as of now. Saying the talent here is lacking is an incorrect statement.
AndroidAddict420 said:
Not asking about whether or not it is hackable but the original exploit was patched from every Pixel from 3 or 4 and up. Do you want in or no?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not in. I don't have a Verizon model. I'm just responding to his declaration
mavssubs said:
They're just going to let you unlock the bootloader, no one tries to push this even though it is federally illegal. But, you won't get anything but hate from this forum. In a few minutes you're going to have multiple "Recognized Developers" telling you it's impossible...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It sort of already happened when OP brought this subject up in THIS THREAD...
But @AndroidAddict420, I'd like to put forth questions; All previous Pixel owners and most users who have done the least bit research on the subject know that Verizon will not have a device (in this case, any Pixel past, present, or future) that have its bootloader unlocked (I wonder if Google would need to be included in the "lawsuit" as they are just being complaint to Verizon as a carrier as well as they even set aside a whole variant just for VZW, and outside of that Google doesn't really care to lock the bootloader down as severely as Verizon) -- therefore most of us have gone to merely ordering from the Google Store or unlocked variants from Amazon/Best Buy; the only upside buying from Verizon is being able to get on a payment plan attached to your existing cell bill, which you can also achieve and pay in the same rate if you qualify for Google Financing (worst downside buying from Verizon, outside of locked bootloader, is all the bloatware) ~~ So why should/would anyone go through the trouble of this class action lawsuit (when the circumstance has long been established [7 years]) instead of just merely purchasing from Google Store or elsewhere outside of VZW? I mean, I understand the lawsuit would potentially get Verizon to change the practice and the change would be nice for Verizon customers (purchasing the device on their payment plan to be on their cell bill), but considering it has been a long standing, established, relatively well-known practice, all these facts standing against it, what realistic hope is there for this class action lawsuit?
Wait, VZW Locks the Bootloaders down?
Who knew!!!???
AndroidAddict420 said:
Yea, the original exploit was patched obviously. You are missing the point of this thread. Do you want to be included or not is the question?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man, just sell the device and get it straight from Google. You claimed in the other thread that you are not new to smart phones, however it has been common knowledge that Verizon locks down all of their bootloaders. This has been going on for at least 10 years now, with a couple of exceptions that required an exploit.
You are wasting your time and energy with a petition or a class action (which will never get anywhere). All Verizon has to say is it ensures safety on their network and customers.
When I see some of the replies in this and other forums (looking at you FlyerTalk) I have to wonder if some of you are corporate shills on their payroll.
Most people know nothing about bootloaders and not everyone that does knows that some are unlockable. Ask the typical cell phone store salesperson or eBay seller if the phone can be unlocked and they'll assure you it can be completely unlocked for any carrier. Some might be lying, most probably don't know. Putting aside whether lying by omission is a lie.
What happens a few years down the road when I learn about alternate firmware? Or maybe I don't and just want to sell the phone - sorry, it's worthless, no more security updates. Bootloader locking affects more than just us hobbyists.
Security and safety? Don't unlock the bootloader! It should be your choice. They give you plenty of warnings while you're unlocking and every time you reboot.
Not to mention that Verizon lets you use pretty much any device on their network these days. What are they protecting?
Would such a class action succeed? Would it change anything? I guess that works depend on your lawyers and what judge they can get the case in front of.
All that said, I can't join your class since I've haven't bought a Verizon device since the Kyocera 6035.
I think it's important to clarify some things....
Verizon is not a public utility. They might be a publicly traded company, and a carrier under the protections of Section 230, but they are not obligated to provide universal access to anyone who wants it, nor are they required to permit unlocking bootloaders of devices on their network. As to why they would want to restrict bootloader unlocking, this would most likely be due to their impressions of network and consumer security; to a company such as Verizon (or any other carrier) a bootloader unlocked device is considered compromised.
They aren't "required" to allow the end user to unlock the bootloader, nor is Google, by any federal law. Sure, you can point to things like the Magnussen Moss Warranty Act, but there's a reason why there are massive ongoing lawsuits over the "right to repair" and "free access". Out here in the agricultural country of Kansas, there are millions of farmers who would much rather be able to fix their own tractors, but John Deere has made a point of preventing unauthorized repairs by anyone who isn't a Deere certified technician, using Deere proprietary tools, to the point where the tractor will "brick" if a non-OEM part is used.
So, it's my opinion that there aren't grounds for a lawsuit. I'd strongly advise anyone considering doing so to talk to an attorney first, to determine what your options are. Ultimately for a class action suit such as this, you have to claim injury of some kind, and it's unlikely that a court would conclude that your case has merit.
Further, I would strongly advise using absolute terms like claiming basis in federal law or case law, unless you can cite the specific statute and/or case.
Just be smart, that's all.
A lawsuit, class action or otherwise, would go nowhere. I don't see a cause of action. I don't see a prima facie case. I don't see any federal law, rule or regulation which would require a warning label on the box.
The best hope to have OEMs allowing their bootloaders to be unlocked would be through Right-To-Repair, or similar, legislation. I don't live in the EU and do not follow their proposed legislations, but I understand there have been some legislations proposed as part of a Right-To-Repair/European Green Deal that may require OEMs to allow bootloader unlocking at the end of warranty or the end of life to allow greater sustainability of these devices.
justDave said:
Most people know nothing about bootloaders and not everyone that does knows that some are unlockable. Ask the typical cell phone store salesperson or eBay seller if the phone can be unlocked and they'll assure you it can be completely unlocked for any carrier. Some might be lying, most probably don't know. Putting aside whether lying by omission is a lie.
What happens a few years down the road when I learn about alternate firmware?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe most people/not everyone would know offhand, but surely a simple internet search or smallest amount of research would easily answer the subject or re-affirm/reconfirm what may be advertised by said salesperson or Ebay seller... literally google "verizon" "pixel/device" "can bootloader be unlocked/rooted", right? Especially if most of those same people are planning on doing rather (more) advanced things to their device, they would be planning on research and/or information searching on how to unlock bootloader/root anyways, right?
Lughnasadh said:
A lawsuit, class action or otherwise, would go nowhere. I don't see a cause of action. I don't see a prima facie case. I don't see any federal law, rule or regulation which would require a warning label on the box.
The best hope to have OEMs allowing their bootloaders to be unlocked would be through Right-To-Repair, or similar, legislation. I don't live in the EU and do not follow their proposed legislations, but I understand there have been some legislations proposed as part of a Right-To-Repair/European Green Deal that may require OEMs to allow bootloader unlocking at the end of warranty or the end of life to allow greater sustainability of these devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have my doubts on right to repair anyway. This would ostensibly mean that they would have to make their own proprietary tools publicly available, such as they would use for things like QFIL...and while that would be a boon for us, I don't think anyone would be willing to compromise their intellectual property that way.
V0latyle said:
I have my doubts on right to repair anyway. This would ostensibly mean that they would have to make their own proprietary tools publicly available, such as they would use for things like QFIL...and while that would be a boon for us, I don't think anyone would be willing to compromise their intellectual property that way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You wouldn't have to force them to make any proprietary tools available to the public. Manufacturers could simply allow bootloader unlocking from their end in some manner. And it doesn't have to fall under the realm of "Right-To-Repair" as we know it in the U.S. (supplying parts, tools, etc.). The EU "environmental/sustainability" approach could be used to support such legislation.
That being said, I think we are a long way off from that here in the U.S.. A long way off...
Lughnasadh said:
You wouldn't have to force them to make any proprietary tools available to the public. Manufacturers could simply allow bootloader unlocking from their end in some manner. And it doesn't have to fall under the realm of "Right-To-Repair" as we know it in the U.S. (supplying parts, tools, etc.). The EU "environmental/sustainability" approach could be used to support such legislation.
That being said, I think we are a long way off from that here in the U.S.. A long way off...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point was, unbricking falls under the category of "repair", therefore a low level reflash as performed via QUSB would qualify
V0latyle said:
My point was, unbricking falls under the category of "repair", therefore a low level reflash as performed via QUSB would qualify
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, ok. Didn't realize you were specifically talking about unbricking.
V0latyle said:
I think it's important to clarify some things....
Verizon is not a public utility. They might be a publicly traded company, and a carrier under the protections of Section 230, but they are not obligated to provide universal access to anyone who wants it, nor are they required to permit unlocking bootloaders of devices on their network. As to why they would want to restrict bootloader unlocking, this would most likely be due to their impressions of network and consumer security; to a company such as Verizon (or any other carrier) a bootloader unlocked device is considered compromised.
They aren't "required" to allow the end user to unlock the bootloader, nor is Google, by any federal law. Sure, you can point to things like the Magnussen Moss Warranty Act, but there's a reason why there are massive ongoing lawsuits over the "right to repair" and "free access". Out here in the agricultural country of Kansas, there are millions of farmers who would much rather be able to fix their own tractors, but John Deere has made a point of preventing unauthorized repairs by anyone who isn't a Deere certified technician, using Deere proprietary tools, to the point where the tractor will "brick" if a non-OEM part is used.
So, it's my opinion that there aren't grounds for a lawsuit. I'd strongly advise anyone considering doing so to talk to an attorney first, to determine what your options are. Ultimately for a class action suit such as this, you have to claim injury of some kind, and it's unlikely that a court would conclude that your case has merit.
Further, I would strongly advise using absolute terms like claiming basis in federal law or case law, unless you can cite the specific statute and/or case.
Just be smart, that's all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except that the *issue* isn't whether or not they are obligated legally to unlock it, it is that they LIED and claimed that it could be unlocked, when in fact it cannot.
That kind of issue doesn't lend itself to class action unless it can be demonstrated that they systemically lie about this fact.
96carboard said:
Except that the *issue* isn't whether or not they are obligated legally to unlock it, it is that they LIED and claimed that it could be unlocked, when in fact it cannot.
That kind of issue doesn't lend itself to class action unless it can be demonstrated that they systemically lie about this fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lied about what, though?
Verizon Pixels can be used on other networks once they're carrier unlocked. Carrier lock =/= bootloader lock, and 99% of the time when a device is advertised as "unlocked" this is what it means.
They didn't lie about anything, and you can't hold a company legally liable for something a technically illiterate CSR said.
Neither Google nor Verizon advertises ANY device as specifically "bootloader unlockable". This case wouldn't see a hearing, much less a jury. Plus, any case against a large corporation only works when there's some formidable legal firepower behind it. No lawyer will touch this without a sizeable retainer. Attorneys rarely care about who wins, they only care about getting paid, and class action lawsuits generally means there's significant potential for a very large settlement.
I'm not defending Verizon or Google here, I'm just being realistic. There's a lot of ideas flying around here, but these are the requirements that have to be met:
There has to be evidence of deception or other wrongdoing
The alleged fault has to have caused measurable injury
The claimant(s) have to have competent legal representation who are willing to go up against billionaire corporate lawyers
None of these are satisfied by "I think Google lied because they said their device is unlockable and I meant bootloader when they really meant carrier".
I'm not a defeatist, again I'm just a realist. OP won't be able to get any competent law firm to take this case, especially not pro bono, so it's not going to go anywhere.