Related
Check out this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100726/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_digital_copyright
I know this gives the example of Apple but will help all phones as well.
Post if you have some comments:
Not trying to be a conspirist nor am I a fan of Apple by ANY standard.. I do however feel that if Club Fed starts dicatating what private enterprise can do (assuming private enterprise is being legal and whatnot) it may be the beginning of the usually referenced slippery slope...
@mostyle
What so corporate freedom is more important than individual freedom now? Like if I buy an iPhone or a Captivate... I shouldn't have the right to mod it because it hurts businesses?
That's whack. This entire community is built around the right to do whatever you want to the products you own. That's how it should be.
I am glad the government stepped in.
If you buy a piece of hardware you should be able to do anything to it you want - you own it. Until now it was possible that you could be arrested for unlocking your phone (at least charged under the DMCA).
Now we have the legal authority to unlock, root, etc. No one is forcing the phone service providers or manufacturers to help us - but we can do what we want with our hardware.
I still think it should go a step farther - if you fulfill your contract, or buy the hardware for full price, then they should give you or maybe sell you the unlock codes, but I don't see that happening.
mostyle said:
Not trying to be a conspirist nor am I a fan of Apple by ANY standard.. I do however feel that if Club Fed starts dicatating what private enterprise can do (assuming private enterprise is being legal and whatnot) it may be the beginning of the usually referenced slippery slope...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So let me get this straight: A private entity dictating what you can do with your property is good but a government entity affirming your right to do what you want with your own property is bad? Am I missing something?
@alphadog00
AT&T and T-Mobile already have policies allowing just what you mentioned. Most of the restrictions seem to be about needing to have a certain amount of the contract (on a subsidised phone) under your belt and of course the iPhone is exempt... The LoC specifically mentioned phone SIM locks in the ruling. To be clear, this doesn't mean phone providers can't lock phones to their network. It simply means that they can't use the DMCA as justification for trying to stop you from breaking the lock. With this new LoC ruling, it means that breaking the SIM lock is "fair use" and the DMCA law against cracking protective encryption does not apply.
@Drachen
yes, I know that the carriers will unlock - but they don't have to. T-Mo is reasonable where AT&T is usually less helpful. It should be easier though.
I think the biggest problem, is that they have no way to balance things for legit customers. They need a way to let good customers out of contracts for legit reasons, while at the same time preventing the scammers from just buying a phone under contract, then paying the early term fee to get out of it and keeping the phone. They raised the term fee, but that just pisses off good customers.
I think I see some of the rational behind keeping the locks on. but if you do 1 year or 2 with them it should be an automatic unlock if you want it.
But at least now it is legal for me to find my own unlock method for travel.
I hate big government telling corps and people how to live their lives. But in this case I think they got it right. If I buy a phone why shouldnt I be able to run any software on it that I want. Dell or HP dont dictate to me what OS I must run on my computer or what programs I can or cant install on it. So rooting and jailbreaking should be legal. And this crap that Moto did with their Droid X with the e-fuse should be illegal as hell.
When you buy a phone you should be able to uninstall android fully, and if you want to run symbian or iOS you should be allowed to install those on your hardware, as long as you purchase a legal copy of the alternate OS, why should Samsung or AT&T get to tell me what OS I absolutely have to use?
Wow, what a retarded country we live in. This is just becoming legal now? I always just chalked it up as common sense. The ownership of the product is legally transferred to you when you purchase the hardware.
This was analogous to getting busted for logging in as administrator on your new Dell desktop, if Dell was stupid enough to ship computers with only a locked down guest account.
Finally today i had enough... I filed a formal complaint with the FTC against motorola and all other mobile device manufacturers out lining the cause and effect of these companies selling us devices that we are made to be only users of rather than owners and administrators the devices we purchased. Nothing will change until we make some one step in and set the rules, i am encouraging everyone here on xda to do the same ... here is a link to the example complaint i filed and the link to the appropriate form to be filed
http://t0dbld.blogspot.com/2011/03/m...otloaders.html
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.go...d.aspx?Lang=en
Here's some more food for though concerning smartphone security:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/carrier-intransigence-harms-internet-security
Perhaps we can spin our complaint with this in mind.
Basically since smartphones are essentially computers, I feel we should insist on being able to do what we want with them - Dell, HP, etc can't object when I choose to replace Windows on my PC with Linux, neither should Moto, HTC, etc be able to determine what we can and cannot run.
Also, if my phone has HDMI out, I can easily envision using it as a media player long after it's served its time as a phone.
IMO, people would be far better off signing this petition which will be presented to Motorola to try and persuade them to change their bootloader policies as they have previously promised to do.
It is a direct request to the one organisation who can change the matters for the better - Motorola themselves.
And unlike this thread, it doesn't rely upon subjective argument of entitlement.
Step666 said:
IMO, people would be far better off signing this petition which will be presented to Motorola to try and persuade them to change their bootloader policies as they have previously promised to do.
It is a direct request to the one organisation who can change the matters for the better - Motorola themselves.
And unlike this thread, it doesn't rely upon subjective argument of entitlement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
first of all is there any harm in both ? secondly i respectfully disagree, some one needs to be put in charge of these things and so far the only thing that governs tech is law suits, as noted above HP did loose to FTC when they tried to deny people from not using windows on there machines, also petitions although the preferred method of hippies and college students do not hold there weight in most courts, i do know from personal exp. as if you really wish i can show you my supreme court case in the state of Michigan and yes years prior we started with a neighborhood petition that didn't even hold up in the local commissions and courts. either way i have signed said petition but i feel that if we get the FTC involved it will help the Petition as eyes will be upon it.... ALSO please keep in mind this is not just motorola they just happen to be better than other companies, jsut like computers we should not have to hack anything for administrator privileges, or to wipe the device and load are own software
But on what grounds would the FTC uphold your complaint?
Just because jailbreaking etc is not illegal, that doesn't give you a right to be able to install custom ROMs onto your handset, nor does it automatically make the measures that companies like Motorola take to prevent modification of their handsets illegal.
You say that the FTC ruled against HP for preventing laptop owners from installing Linux - how come when I Google 'FTC HP Linux', I find nothing relating to that?
Step666 said:
But on what grounds would the FTC uphold your complaint?
Just because jailbreaking etc is not illegal, that doesn't give you a right to be able to install custom ROMs onto your handset, nor does it automatically make the measures that companies like Motorola take to prevent modification of their handsets illegal.
You say that the FTC ruled against HP for preventing laptop owners from installing Linux - how come when I Google 'FTC HP Linux', I find nothing relating to that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this is not about jail breaking and if you make it about such it will not get looked at, this is about being sold a device that we are not given administrative right to or the ability to wipe and install any software we want on it.... You wouldn't stand for this on your home pc would you ?
Because the ruling was not about linux, it was about being forced to have windows and paying for the licensing, it became much bigger than just hp as well but it is there including the end results of hp having to offer it with out windows and to refund people's money that did not agree to windows terms and returned the license
t0dbld said:
this is about being sold a device that we are not given administrative right to or the ability to wipe and install any software we want on it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, ok, fine.
But that detail aside, my question still remains unanswered - why would they rule in your favour on that basis?
In what way are you entitled to be able to completely wipe your phone and install whatever you want onto it?
t0dbld said:
Because the ruling was not about linux, it was about being forced to have windows and paying for the licensing, it became much bigger than just hp as well but it is there including the end results of hp having to offer it with out windows and to refund people's money that did not agree to windows terms and returned the license
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's different then - it's one thing for HP to force customers to pay the licence fee for a copy of Windows they don't need/want but no-one is being forced to pay for an Android licence here, Motorola et al's practices are not costing the end user money.
I'm just trying to understand why you believe the FTC would consider your complaint, let alone side against the manufacturers.
look dude your still not getting it and thats ok, do it or dont, try to help or dont, have a good day
only a matter of time b4 these guys realize locked bootloaders dont help any1..
I know that Dan found an exploit, I have a feeling this is part of why nobody seems to be complaining to AT&T about the locked bootloader, but the problem is that it isn't a permanent fix, granted we have the ability to disable automated updates, etc. My problem is that AT&T is going to lock all devices from here on out, simply because we allowed them too.
So what can we do?
AnthomX said:
So what can we do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't give AT&T your business? I know the locked bootloader issue incenses the Android modding community, but the vast majority of consumers don't know and don't care. AT&T is practically the government, and they don't care either. It's frustrating, but if you don't like it please vote with your dollars.
burhanistan said:
Don't give AT&T your business? I know the locked bootloader issue incenses the Android modding community, but the vast majority of consumers don't know and don't care. AT&T is practically the government, and they don't care either. It's frustrating, but if you don't like it please vote with your dollars.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can agree with that, my only complaint is the small majority of us that notice the lock. Speaking with our money in this case isn't going to make much of a point. There simply isn't enough of us to make them take a hit in their margins. So my guess is that in this instance, it is, what it is, for us? I know AT&T provides us (me and family) the best service in terms of voice/data.
That is just disappointing, because other carriers will follow behind it.
AnthomX said:
I know that Dan found an exploit, I have a feeling this is part of why nobody seems to be complaining to AT&T about the locked bootloader, but the problem is that it isn't a permanent fix, granted we have the ability to disable automated updates, etc. My problem is that AT&T is going to lock all devices from here on out, simply because we allowed them too.
So what can we do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right now there isn't many legal avenues in favor of the consumer concerning the access to unlocked devices. Congress has given the carriers most of the deciding power over what extent the end-user may manipulate the software on the device. After a petition gained enough friction and reached the White House, the executive branch has agreed consumers deserve the right to invoke their will over devices sold to them without criminal liability, there has yet been any legislative change regarding the matter.
Ultimately, what we can do is multi-faceted to get the attention of carriers [AT&T] to cave to our demands:
1: We can vote with our money by refusing to purchase devices distributed by them, citing their abuse of power over devices sold to consumers -- leaving us no freedom to do as we please with merchandise we contractually own.
2: We can appeal to authority by raising the issue to a federal level to be examined by either higher courts, consumer affairs, Better Business Bureau, or writing your congressman.
3: Start an online petition and hope it gains enough traction to put AT&T and other carriers in a negative light publically on the national stage.
These options work well with numbers and have a better chance of success when done in conjunction with one another. The armchair approach has very little chance of success and often doesn't even merit a reply by way of spokesperson.
AnthomX said:
I can agree with that, my only complaint is the small majority of us that notice the lock. Speaking with our money in this case isn't going to make much of a point. There simply isn't enough of us to make them take a hit in their margins. So my guess is that in this instance, it is, what it is, for us? I know AT&T provides us (me and family) the best service in terms of voice/data.
That is just disappointing, because other carriers will follow behind it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, but to play devil's advocate, I can see why AT&T would want to lock down devices. I imagine since they've been selling Android devices they've had to process tons of RMAs on devices that were bricked by amateurs installing the wrong ROMs. That may well amount to a minuscule hit in their bloated profit margin, but a corporation tends to do whatever it can to prevent dollars from leaking out. If the locked bootloader prevents the casual ROM flasher from bricking a new S4, then they view that as success. I don't know if that's why they did it, though.
The other side to that, of course, that an unlocked bootloader makes it easy to restore a bricked device back to stock. I'd like to see AT&T and other carriers reach out to the dev community more and have some provisions for installing alternate ROMs and OSes on the devices. I'd also like them to just sell me bandwidth and not interfere with content or operating systems, but I won't hold my breath!
antde201 said:
Right now there isn't many legal avenues in favor of the consumer concerning the access to unlocked devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
burhanistan said:
I agree, but to play devil's advocate,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AGREED very much Burhanistan, I know that is a hit for AT&T, but you know, they could offer repair services at a decent rate that could fix these bad flashes, as most of the time only a JTAG is needed. Which leads into support and encouragement for the Android communities. But, one can dream. They are more about that profit margin than a profit margin AND great customer service.
Antde, I am looking at starting a petition, maybe gain some traction there? Who knows, but I think you are right, in the end, AT&T doesn't want our business, and I am ok with that. Unfortunately it will be a headache similar to swapping from Apple after using them for so many years. Time to bust out the aspirin I guess. We will see.
Becasue carriers dont care about what we think about locked bootloaders.At the end of the day this device is making millions for them think about it to them it doesnt make a difference.I myself work for a carrier in the U.S and trust me to them what ever rants and complaints we post mean squat....
Anyways its going to be unlocked soon when the VZW releases so whatever I dont even get why we should make such a big deal locked bootloaders always get hacked ...
burhanistan said:
I agree, but to play devil's advocate, I can see why AT&T would want to lock down devices. I imagine since they've been selling Android devices they've had to process tons of RMAs on devices that were bricked by amateurs installing the wrong ROMs. That may well amount to a minuscule hit in their bloated profit margin, but a corporation tends to do whatever it can to prevent dollars from leaking out. If the locked bootloader prevents the casual ROM flasher from bricking a new S4, then they view that as success. I don't know if that's why they did it, though.
The other side to that, of course, that an unlocked bootloader makes it easy to restore a bricked device back to stock. I'd like to see AT&T and other carriers reach out to the dev community more and have some provisions for installing alternate ROMs and OSes on the devices. I'd also like them to just sell me bandwidth and not interfere with content or operating systems, but I won't hold my breath!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's more to a carrier's decision to lock down a device's bootloader than just pure spite and asserting their control. Carriers are also charged with mobile security, protection of their assets (bandwidth), and again security.
An unlocked bootloader theoretically opens the floodgates to a plethora of security threats to both the device and information stored and/or shared therein. Google and their partners are pushing mobile security to both stay relevant in the mobile OS market and to appeal to other markets where they may have been previously overlooked, such as defense and business.
You also have to consider the possibility of unregulated mobile tethering which falls under the umbrella of loss prevention to any business.
Lastly, as you and others have mentioned, the possibility of insurance claims due to bricked devices. Though I'd argue that this area doesn't pose much risk to the carrier directly as you void your warranty as soon as you flash a custom ROM.
So with all of these facets together, you'd see how it would be a no brainer to a corporation to purchase the secure version of an OEM device. Especially if you've chosen to adopt a subsidized device. The contract you sign is subject to whatever terms they produce and if you do not agree, you're free to stay with your current device and leave when your contract expires. I don't care for this sentiment, but it's the reality they have procured.
I think they did it to fight back against tethering.
ATT getting phone manufacturers to lock their phones started a while back. IIRC the first big uproar was for the HTC Vivid. IMHO it's for security and ATT keeping their big accounts. BB ruled for so long because of security. iPhones are the same way. Companies want a secure device. Moto (one of the main ones that market to business use) has always had the stingiest bootloaders regardless of carrier.
poofyhairguy said:
I think they did it to fight back against tethering.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya because that really stopped us from tethering... Oh wait..
Perhaps upon reading that, you call to mind Thomas Jefferson pulling out his Android to thwart impeding forces. I actually like that idea, but I know that the time in which John Locke wrote the contributing phrase was much different than today. It was a time of change and also a time when people realized their full potential to make a difference. In the spirit of our Founding Fathers, and in an exercise of my own Personal Liberties, I have started a petition to require cell phone carriers to allow bootloader unlock on any Android device that is not under contract or subsidy. Many of you will know immediately what this means, and the exponential benefits of such a law. Many of you will flip to the next activity complacently believing this does not affect you. If you do not understand, I wish to enlighten you as to how this affects each and every Android user in the world. Signing the petition takes only a few moments of your time and adds to the greater good of our technology and innovation as a Nation.
So what exactly does this “Bootloader Unlock” thing mean?
Well, that is a great question. Most simply put, according to Motorla’s website, “bootloader is a little bit of code that tells your device's operating system how to boot up”. That does not mean much to the average user, I am sure. What it means in my own words is it is a piece of code that dictates what I can and cannot do, in terms of software modification, to my own personal Android device. On my wireless provider whom I will call Big Red, their requirement is that OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers, or simply phone makers) lock this bit of code to prevent modification by the end-user or customer. I am certain, to those that do not wish to modify their devices, this sounds like a good fail-safe to avoid breaking their devices. I am also certain that to those like myself, those who have the experience and knowledge to do things like flash custom firmware or software and modify our devices to suit our own personal taste and needs, this is a huge roadblock and an impediment on what we can do with our own personal property and how it can be improved. In order to modify system files as the user sees fit, a thing called Root is required. Root is, most simply privileged access to a phones file system. A locked bootloader means that in order to gain “Root” access, a security exploit must be found and exploited in order to modify system files. These exploits are literally holes that must be (and typically are) patched in software updates sent out by the service providers or manufacturers to protect the end-user. While the efforts of the security experts are always going to be required to keep us safe and updated, I personally do not want to rely on someone to hack the software so it can be modified. This should be an inherent ability of any user who does not have a subsidy or contract obligation. I also feel that any device that can be updated by the user allows the people who develop for Android to Innovate and push our technology farther forward. When manufacturers are required to lock down a device, ultimately, the user is the one who loses. My first Android device, the Droid 1 or A855 ran an under-volted overclocked kernel (simply another piece of code that tells a device how to boot and how to run its processor among other things) that ran 1.7ghz on it’s ~600mhz processor. I used that phone at least twice as long as I would have if it hadn’t been bootloader unlocked. Also, on the note of the OG Droid, I can say that this was the phone that helped Verizon to compete with the Iphone, bolstering the customer base and creating mass knowledge of the Andoid platform. This was done with a bootloader-unlocked device. It seems that once the market was realized, bootloader locking became the normative. The Droid line has been bootloader-locked ever since. There are several examples of the same hardware being sold, under different names, with the bootloader-unlockable right out of the box. The most recent example of this is the Motorola xt1250, or Moto Maxx (US CDMA). The international version of the same phone, the xt1225 is also bootloader-unlockable. All three are known as the Quark. They are identical in hardware aside from exteriors. Big Red required their version to have the bootloader locked. There is no way to have it unlocked for now.
So Why Would I Want to Sign This Petition?
Honestly, you may not care about Android at all. You could conceivably have never been interested, and care less. However, the technology available to you today is available because of innovations and advancements that have been made across a wide technological array of development. Android is no different. Love that Halo or Heads Up inspired feature ____ manufacturer just put on your new phone? People who develop are to be thanked. The possibilities are endless for what can be done and applied across many platforms. The future of mobile technology can be greatly advanced by creating open access for all who are inclined.
Catharsis
Okay, I admit it. It is really, really unlikely our politicians actually act upon this petition, even if 100,000 signatures are reached. As much as I like to think our law should “fix” things that are wrong, I can agree with one of my favorite developers from back in the day, @adrenalyne, when he said [government typically does not, and should not interfere with private business.] I can agree with that on the same grounds by which I feel we should be granted bootloader unlock on…if and only, if, no one’s rights are infringed upon. I feel it is all of our right to do what we please with our own personal property. There was a great analogy given on XDA Developers forum in the bounty thread where this all started by @Wynnded In essence, it said the carrier provides the highway, the OEM provides the device, but it is the carrier’s highway, so if the carrier requires the OEM to lock it down so be it. Personally, I feel that if the carrier has a highway, it is a toll-road, as I pay for my service. I purchase my vehicle outright, so if I want to modify it, and I pay for my vehicle, making no obligation to said toll operator, it is not within their range of rights to tell me I cannot modify my vehicle in the way I see fit. Thank you for your time. –kitcostantino @ medicbeard on twitter #unlockthedroids
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...e-not-subsized-or-attatched-contract/QfTmsspy
Original thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/dro...unlock-bootloader-root-turbo-t2927958/page115
Sources:
https://motorola-global-portal.custhelp.com/app/standalone/bootloader/unlock-your-device-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooting_(Android_OS)
I ask for no donations, nor anything else. Simply share this if you feel so compelled. Really, it hurts nothing even if you don’t.
#unlockthedroids
I don't know if this is general knowledge here, but I figured I'd relate my experience here in case it's informative for others. I've been having a ton of trouble with dropped calls on Verizon at my home. It's always been a marginal signal, but the last couple of months it's been impossible to use my phone at all. So I finally called Verizon and quickly was transferred to Level 2 support. The Level 2 support immediately jumped down my throat about having a rooted phone. When I asked them how they determine that I have a rooted phone the agent proceeded to list every app installed on my phone and explained that some of them only work on rooted phones. He was adamant that the reason for dropped calls was having a rooted phone and refused to provide any support.
It was news to me that our Verizon phones phone home and keep them informed as to what apps are installed on our phones, and that now Verizon is refusing to provide support to people that even have apps that require root privileges.
Depends on the state that you live in. The warranty is to protect against hardware defects and in some states Verizon will have to show that rooting or one of your installed apps is the cause of your issues.
You can always flash back to full stock and see if you still have drops. If so, call them up again...
I *am* full stock. I have literally changed nothing except to root the phone. Everything is pure stock ... even the Verizon apps and recovery are all still there.
GNRDuncan said:
I *am* full stock. I have literally changed nothing except to root the phone. Everything is pure stock ... even the Verizon apps and recovery are all still there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is not uncommon for carriers to refuse to support anything other then fully stock devices. You have to remember that root is a security risk as well and most will not support this.
Thanks. I get that. What surprised me wasn't that they wouldn't support a rooted phone, but that Verizon had a list of apps I'd installed (even apps installed directly by ADB). I wasn't aware that they had spyware on my phone that was monitoring what I do on the phone.
GNRDuncan said:
Thanks. I get that. What surprised me wasn't that they wouldn't support a rooted phone, but that Verizon had a list of apps I'd installed (even apps installed directly by ADB). I wasn't aware that they had spyware on my phone that was monitoring what I do on the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is part of the info that is sent to all carriers when they collect info for troubleshooting and stats. Some of that info is they grab a list of apps in the system and data/app partitions.
I wasn't aware they could read anything on my phone without my permission. I wonder what other information they can grab at will without me knowing?
It's legal in the US for providers to look at what their customers are using and installing on their phone?
Bloody hell... Over here a provider isn't even allowed to see which apps use up your data, all they can report is how much you used in total. The very idea that they'd be allowed to look inside your phone is... inconceivable in Europe.
GNRDuncan said:
I wasn't aware they could read anything on my phone without my permission. I wonder what other information they can grab at will without me knowing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats the thing is you give them permission. No one ever reads it but it is in the TOS. You even agree to it when you first sign in to an android device about it collecting data from your device. As for other info they can get. Pretty much any and every website you go to, and things like that. Your contacts and stuff are pretty safe. If you consider storing them on google safe.
ShadowLea said:
It's legal in the US for providers to look at what their customers are using and installing on their phone?
Bloody hell... Over here a provider isn't even allowed to see which apps use up your data, all they can report is how much you used in total. The very idea that they'd be allowed to look inside your phone is... inconceivable in Europe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You might not have noticed but you agree to it on every android device. ITs all part of troubleshooting system issues. Heck Google can even remotely remove apps from your device. Carriers in the US have far more control over the device because you dont tech own the device until you pay off your contract or unless you buy the device at full retail price.
An agreement that says "we may collect data about your phone" is not the same thing as "You give us permission to enter your phone at any time for any reason and collect whatever we want from your phone."
What app allows this one the phone? I will happily remove it.
GNRDuncan said:
An agreement that says "we may collect data about your phone" is not the same thing as "You give us permission to enter your phone at any time for any reason and collect whatever we want from your phone."
What app allows this one the phone? I will happily remove it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats the thing. It does. Collecting data about the device, pretty much says that you give them the right to collect data about the device. This does include apps installed. IT is not as simple as an app. IT is built into the OS.
zelendel said:
You might not have noticed but you agree to it on every android device. ITs all part of troubleshooting system issues. Heck Google can even remotely remove apps from your device. Carriers in the US have far more control over the device because you dont tech own the device until you pay off your contract or unless you buy the device at full retail price.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google is not the same thing as a Telecom provider.
Google makes your OS, a Telco just provides you with access to the network. There's a very large difference.
It's like the Ministry of Infrastructure being able to see your car's logs. The manufacturer can read out the car's system for troubleshooting, as they should, but the government branch that pours asphalt on roads has no business seeing what kind on music I listen to in my car!
Who am I kidding, the US Ministry of Infrastructure probably has recordings from how awful people sing in their cars synced to the exact GPS coordinate for every word.
Maybe I should explain that European devices are not truly Branded? The only branding they have are logos, tunes and a few apps that you can freely remove or add through the online appstores as well.
A lot of users have a SIMonly contract (just a SIM) and buy their devices, without any connection to their provider, in an independent store.
The whole system US providers have with their own privately locked devices that don't even allow eachother's 4G network, that's illegal here.
zelendel said:
Thats the thing. It does. Collecting data about the device, pretty much says that you give them the right to collect data about the device. This does include apps installed. IT is not as simple as an app. IT is built into the OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your laws are very, very terrifying. No wonder the USA is such a bloody mess....
I thought the spying on citizens for money, corruption and dirty business practises wasn't that bad, but it seems I've had a very naive view of the USA. I'm utterly grateful I never followed my childhood dream of emigrating to the USA. They're one step away from a totalitarian corporate government... I'm starting to see why so many people keep referencing Skynet... The plot in Continuum (the TV show) is far more present-day and far less futuristic, it seems...
Over here "we may collect data about your phone" does not mean "We have the complete legal right to read everything you do, watch, install and write on your phone".
They must specify exactly what data, how they collect it and what they use it for, and any deviation from those specifications results in a hefty fine or even a suspension of business rights.
They're only allowed to look at your phone, not in it. They can't even connect your dialed numbers to your in-phone contacts on the bill. Even in their own app, you have to give explicit permission for that link.
zelendel said:
Thats the thing. It does. Collecting data about the device, pretty much says that you give them the right to collect data about the device. This does include apps installed. IT is not as simple as an app. IT is built into the OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your interpretation of the term differs radically from my own.
Luckily we have AOSP, so if we know where the code that allows this is located we can remove it. Any ideas where to start looking? I'm new to all of this, but it would be worth getting into it if we really have to waste our time protecting ourselves from the businesses we have to patronize in order to function in a modern society.
ShadowLea said:
Google is not the same thing as a Telecom provider.
Google makes your OS, a Telco just provides you with access to the network. There's a very large difference.
It's like the Ministry of Infrastructure being able to see your car's logs. The manufacturer can read out the car's system for troubleshooting, as they should, but the government branch that pours asphalt on roads has no business seeing what kind on music I listen to in my car!
Who am I kidding, the US Ministry of Infrastructure probably has recordings from how awful people sing in their cars synced to the exact GPS coordinate for every word.
Maybe I should explain that European devices are not truly Branded? The only branding they have are logos, tunes and a few apps that you can freely remove or add through the online appstores as well.
A lot of users have a SIMonly contract (just a SIM) and buy their devices, without any connection to their provider, in an independent store.
The whole system US providers have with their own privately locked devices that don't even allow eachother's 4G network, that's illegal here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh I know. I generally dont buy US based devices even though I live here. Also our carriers here put their own version of the OS on the device. Loaded down with bloat ware and added code.
GNRDuncan said:
Your interpretation of the term differs radically from my own.
Luckily we have AOSP, so if we know where the code that allows this is located we can remove it. Any ideas where to start looking? I'm new to all of this, but it would be worth getting into it if we really have to waste our time protecting ourselves from the businesses we have to patronize in order to function in a modern society.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not that simple. AOSP is alot different then what comes on carrier devices. Carrier roms are closed sourced just like OEM roms like touchwiz, HTC sense and all the others.
Why do you think Verizon goes through such great pains to lock the bootloader. There is no way that I am aware of as they would just get the info from google as they collect the same info.
zelendel said:
Not that simple. AOSP is alot different then what comes on carrier devices. Carrier roms are closed sourced just like OEM roms like touchwiz, HTC sense and all the others.
Why do you think Verizon goes through such great pains to lock the bootloader. There is no way that I am aware of as they would just get the info from google as they collect the same info.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google can't collect the data if the code that collects the data is removed.
GNRDuncan said:
Google can't collect the data if the code that collects the data is removed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could try but buy doing so you would lose all access to Google Apps. There is one project that I know of that is working to remove all Google stuff from Android. CM has the same plan but like I said you would lose all access to Google Apps in doing so. It's all part of just about every OS on the planet.
zelendel said:
Oh I know. I generally dont buy US based devices even though I live here. Also our carriers here put their own version of the OS on the device. Loaded down with bloat ware and added code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wise move!
They do add bloatware here, but all of it is just pre-installed apps that you can add and remove at your leisure. They're all apps that you can find on the Play Store (or Windows Marketplace, or Apple Store) and can install as a customer from another provider as well. The only code they're allowed to add is network optimisations.
They can't alter any of the system functions. Take the TNL firmware (T-Mobile NL), all it has is the My T-Mobile app and the T-Mobile logo+tune at boot. That's the entire branding. It's hardly worth the word 'Branding', all they did was slap a sticker on it and insert a businesscard, so to speak.
And you're free to just flash any other firmware, as flashing, rooting and using CustomROMS can't void the warranty due to the EU laws. Even KNOX 0x1 doesn't matter.
I do Samsung-based tech support for T-Mobile NL (which is why I know what they can and can't do here), and half my day consists of helping users flash the Unbranded firmware over the Branded one, through the official contact channels. Samsung will even do it for you if you take the device to a Service Center. Managed to wipe your IMEI? Take it to a Service Center with proof of purchase and they'll fix it for you in minutes. Sending in a device with a broken screen that has Cyanogenmod on it gets a new screen and returned to the customer under warranty.
The other half of my day is sometimes spend explaining to users why, due to privacy laws, a provider can't block an app or service from using up your data, and can't block malicious sms subscription services.
The EU council is filled with idiots, but they do have their moments. :laugh:
ShadowLea said:
Wise move!
They do add bloatware here, but all of it is just pre-installed apps that you can add and remove at your leisure. They're all apps that you can find on the Play Store (or Windows Marketplace, or Apple Store) and can install as a customer from another provider as well. The only code they're allowed to add is network optimisations.
They can't alter any of the system functions. Take the TNL firmware (T-Mobile NL), all it has is the My T-Mobile app and the T-Mobile logo+tune at boot. That's the entire branding. It's hardly worth the word 'Branding', all they did was slap a sticker on it and insert a businesscard, so to speak.
And you're free to just flash any other firmware, as flashing, rooting and using CustomROMS can't void the warranty due to the EU laws. Even KNOX 0x1 doesn't matter.
I do Samsung-based tech support for T-Mobile NL (which is why I know what they can and can't do here), and half my day consists of helping users flash the Unbranded firmware over the Branded one, through the official contact channels. Samsung will even do it for you if you take the device to a Service Center. Managed to wipe your IMEI? Take it to a Service Center with proof of purchase and they'll fix it for you in minutes. Sending in a device with a broken screen that has Cyanogenmod on it gets a new screen and returned to the customer under warranty.
The other half of my day is sometimes spend explaining to users why, due to privacy laws, a provider can't block an app or service from using up your data, and can't block malicious sms subscription services.
The EU council is filled with idiots, but they do have their moments. :laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah here that is not even close to being an option, I spent years working for Verizon Tech support. They try to void your warranty anyway possible. That is mostly due to the fact of the subsidized pricing for phones. Here you dont even really own the phone completely for almost 2 years after you get the device.
Service centers here are few and far between. All warranties go through the carrier. Carriers here love blocking apps. But then Like I said they have too much control over the devices.
zelendel said:
Yeah here that is not even close to being an option, I spent years working for Verizon Tech support. They try to void your warranty anyway possible. That is mostly due to the fact of the subsidized pricing for phones. Here you dont even really own the phone completely for almost 2 years after you get the device.
Service centers here are few and far between. All warranties go through the carrier. Carriers here love blocking apps. But then Like I said they have too much control over the devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The law changed here recently, nowadays the phone you buy with a subscription has to be charged separately. You basically buy the phone and split the payments over 2 years. You own it straight away, you can even sell it if you want, but you have to continue paying for it, even if you sell it, until you've paid it off. If you end the contract prematurely, you have to pay the remaining sum of the phone.
Warranty-based repairs here go through the shop you purchased it from. If you bought it directly from the provider, they handle the warranty. If you bought it from an independent shop or online store, (both of which also sell subscriptions with phones for the providers) they send it to Samsung. Even if you buy it with a subscription.
There are 12 Service Centers in the Amsterdam area alone. (They're not Samsung stores, we only have 2 of those (which is probably still quite a lot compared to the US, considering we only have 17 million inhabitants), but they're service points inside another store, often the stores of various providers. You can go there regardless of who you pay each months.)
(Sorry for the walls of text, I find these things very interesting xD)