Related
hi everybody does anybody knows any freeware app for blacklisting or whitelisting calls / sms for wm 5.0 or jasjar
Hi,
CallSms Blocker.
Asked for "freeware" I think. CallSmsBlocker" is not..!!
Read this.
Portions of this software are Cristiano Severini Copyright ©2005.
All intellectual property rights in such portions of the Software and documentation are owned by Cristiano Severini and are protected by Italy copyright laws, other applicable copyright laws and international treaty provisions.
Cristiano Severini and its suppliers retain all rights not expressly granted.
Winmobileapps.com
Oh sorry, of course it is not freeware...
I didn't saw that he was searching for a freeware... Sorry.
http://www.androidcentral.com/library-congress-updates-dmca-rooting-given-exemption#comment-51125
The Library of Congress has seen fit to specifically exempt rooting and jailbreaking (for the iPhone) from the DMCA. This means that it is now 100 percent legal to root to your heart's content without fear of legal action taken against you. Check out the exact wording:
"Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset."
This does not mean that HTC, Motorola, and other manufactures can't (or won't) continue to try to keep their devices locked down; it just means they can't sic the lawyers on you if you do choose to root.
So, why not head into the Android Central forums and get your hack on? Check out the full legal wording after the break. [Copyright.gov via Engadget, NPR]
Statement of the Librarian of Congress Relating to Section 1201 Rulemaking
Section 1201(a)(1) of the copyright law requires that every three years I am to determine whether there are any classes of works that will be subject to exemptions from the statute's prohibition against circumvention of technology that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. I make that determination at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding conducted by the Register of Copyrights, who makes a recommendation to me. Based on that proceeding and the Register's recommendation, I am to determine whether the prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works is causing or is likely to cause adverse effects on the ability of users of any particular classes of copyrighted works to make noninfringing uses of those works. The classes of works that I designated in the previous proceeding expire at the end of the current proceeding unless proponents of a class prove their case once again.
This is the fourth time that I have made such a determination. Today I have designated six classes of works. Persons who circumvent access controls in order to engage in noninfringing uses of works in these six classes will not be subject to the statutory prohibition against circumvention.
As I have noted at the conclusion of past proceedings, it is important to understand the purposes of this rulemaking, as stated in the law, and the role I have in it. This is not a broad evaluation of the successes or failures of the DMCA. The purpose of the proceeding is to determine whether current technologies that control access to copyrighted works are diminishing the ability of individuals to use works in lawful, noninfringing ways. The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls, and therefore this rulemaking proceeding is not about technologies that control copying. Nor is this rulemaking about the ability to make or distribute products or services used for purposes of circumventing access controls, which are governed by a different part of section 1201.
In this rulemaking, the Register of Copyrights received 19 initial submissions proposing 25 classes of works, many of them duplicative in subject matter, which the Register organized into 11 groups and published in a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on the proposed classes. Fifty-six comments were submitted. Thirty-seven witnesses appeared during the four days of public hearings in Washington and in Palo Alto, California. Transcripts of the hearings, copies of all of the comments, and copies of other information received by the Register have been posted on the Copyright Office's website.
The six classes of works are:
(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos
(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:
(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.
(5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace; and
(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book's read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.
All of these classes of works find their origins in classes that I designated at the conclusion of the previous rulemaking proceeding, but some of the classes have changed due to differences in the facts and arguments presented in the current proceeding. For example, in the previous proceeding I designated a class that enable film and media studies professors to engage in the noninfringing activity of making compilations of film clips for classroom instruction. In the current proceeding, the record supported an expansion of that class to enable the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into documentary films and noncommercial videos for the purpose of criticism or comment, when the person engaging in circumvention reasonably believes that it is necessary to fulfill that purpose. I agree with the Register that the record demonstrates that it is sometimes necessary to circumvent access controls on DVDs in order to make these kinds of fair uses of short portions of motion pictures.
wait... our government did this? lol wow haha
#1 rocks my world lol I hate the movie industry
For some reason I see it now that someone like NTP will patent rooting a phone and end up suing everyone that roots their phone.
dwertz said:
For some reason I see it now that someone like NTP will patent rooting a phone and end up suing everyone that roots their phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Steve Jobs already has a Patent on that.
dwertz said:
For some reason I see it now that someone like NTP will patent rooting a phone and end up suing everyone that roots their phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the idea patent application is in the mail
j/k
My question is does this effect warranty status at all? In other words will rooting my device no longer void the manufacturer's warranty on parts?
nukedukem said:
My question is does this effect warranty status at all? In other words will rooting my device no longer void the manufacturer's warranty on parts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rooting can still void your warrenty
wildgillis said:
Rooting can still void your warrenty
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
rooting still does... and with sprint both you and sprint [in the TnC] agree to binding arbitration in case of a dispute. If you can prove rooting your phone didn't adversely affect the unability of your phone or violate fcc rules then they will lose. and if you come with that proof they probably won't waste their high priced lawyer's time
Seems as though it mainly protects the developers, (which is a great thing). The end users will benefit also.
it doesnt protect devs, it is still illegal to distribute rooting/jailbreaking methods, just not illegal to use them.
davebu said:
it doesnt protect devs, it is still illegal to distribute rooting/jailbreaking methods, just not illegal to use them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Says who? Do you have links? I ask because I had not heard this before. The ruling here actually quantified the amount of code that was being changed as trivial and not to be considered.
davebu said:
it doesnt protect devs, it is still illegal to distribute rooting/jailbreaking methods, just not illegal to use them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you come up with this?!
the war continues ....
New evidence against Google's willful violation of rights of use of Java and Oracle
At the main competitor to Apple in the mobile platforms serious problems - found new critical evidence of guilt Google intentionally unlawful use of Java technology in the development of Android. In addition to the risk of losing the case, Google could face difficulties protecting patents from charges Android Apple and other competitors.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
According to Florian Mueller (Florian Mueller) from FOSS Patents, evidence was obtained from the two emails, one of them is sent to the head of Andy Rubin, Google (Andy Rubin), the principal founder of the project Android, who later became a popular mobile platform Google.
At first Rubin (Rubin) came up with Danger - PDA with a mobile platform based on Java, then he started to work on Android (before he became part of Google) - and the Android platform has not been entirely based on Java, and was a modified version of software is modified enough to make Google free of patent claims Sun and paying any licensing fees.
Andy Rubin (Andy Rubin) - the openness of
Even back in 2005, before the release of Android, Rubin (Rubin) wrote:
"If the Sun refuses to work with us, we will have to choose: 1) abandon our findings and move to the use of languages MSFT CLR VM and C #; 2) in spite of all use Java, and be prepared to defend its decision against its enemies, which may occur on our way ".
Referring to this letter, Müller (Mueller) notes the view of the judges on this subject:
«Google judged simply and unceremoniously, preferring to risk the possible start of litigation than fair to pay for licensing Java».
In a letter to Rubin (Rubin) clearly says that Android team is fully aware of the size of attachments to the platform on Java-based resources and effort, and believes that this was too much to move now to the alternative language proposed by Microsoft. However, Google does not agree to pay for the licensing of Sun Java, and, judging by the comments Rubin (Rubin), his company is going to just keep working and wait for developments, inviting the "enemies" to give adequate legal battle.
We need licensing negotiations Java»
A second email was written almost five after the first-mentioned, it is known as "draft Lindholm (Lindholm)». Here is a quote from the letter:
"So, what we really were invited to do [the founders of Google] Larry Page (Larry Page) and Sergey Brin (Sergey Brin), a study of alternatives to Java for Android and Chrome. We went through a lot of options, but none we could not find suitable. As a result, we believe that we must begin negotiations on licensing of Java on favorable terms to us. "
In response to this letter, the judge Elsap (Alsup), according to Florian (Florian), stated that
"Good counsel from Oracle will need this document (the draft of the letter) and the Magna Carta, to win the case and found that Google intentionally violates the rights of Oracle».
Google also has publicly accused the Oracle (the company that now owns the patent rights of Sun's Java), as well as Apple and Microsoft, «in the conduct of deliberate hostile campaign against the Android ... using bogus patents," without saying a word about whether the creators of Android by law to license the use of Java, or will they continue to deliberately refuse to do so.
Google tried to make this letter did not appear in the case against Oracle, claiming that the message Lindholm (Lindholm) is protected by law secret (the right to counsel not to disclose information received from the client). But the judge Elsap (Alsup) requirement rejected Google, noting that this "is not a full draft by e-mail," and that he had no one was sent. Then there was detailed in a Bloomberg article on the subject, and when Bloomberg asked for comments on Google, a company spokesman Kathleen Todhunter - Gerberg (Katelin Todhunter-Gerberg) said the refusal to comment on this question.
If Google would be guilty of a willful violation, Apple and others will be easier to sue him for Android
We can assume that Oracle is unlikely to get from Google's $ 2.6 billion in compensation for damages for unlawful use of Java in Android, and total control is likely to be reduced to the possibility of a settlement in principle, not to prove guilt Google Android for the use of Java .
The consequences of the settlement will be far more serious than paying royalties Android company Oracle, which, like Microsoft, is now far behind Google in terms of popularity of mobile platforms on the background of Android, located in the public domain. As the first of all developed mobile platform, Oracle Java (which is still licensed by Nokia Symbian and RIM BlackBerry) was in third place after the Android (on all producers devaysov total) and Apple iOS.
The judge, a leading cause Oracle, the plaintiff asked to rewrite the action in the damage to a portion thereof. But the argument about the independence of the Google of its revenues from advertising to business of Oracle and the calculation of the amount of damages the court disagreed. Instead, the judge accepted the arguments of Oracle's "theory of network effects" and said that Oracle may, in its assessment of damages to take into account some of the activities of the defendant in the U.S., non-mobile business.
Outcome of cases with guilty pleas Google's use of Java enables Oracle to punish the defendant three times. First, Oracle itself will receive its compensation, and secondly, competitors, Apple and Microsoft in particular, it will be easier to deal with search engine to prove infringement of its patent rights by the defendant, who had already been found guilty of willful violation of intellectual property, and, third, Android licensees also have the potential to fall under the same legal fire.
A few more reasons for headaches Google
Huge profits from the Internet - will allow Google ads without much effort to repay the court costs and to pay such compensation, but Android licensees may want to stop using "open" Google's software because of legal liability, which is fraught with such use.
Because Google itself to avoid any royalties, Microsoft and Oracle, then the licensees may fail to see Android in the use of Google mobile platform version of Linux / Java / Flash any advantage. Then it is logical to assume that they decide to do a better design your own unique software, as is already done Samsung (working with Bada), as HP's webOS, such as Nokia, in collaboration with Microsoft, and Motorola as its Linux.
Market introduction of many different mobile platforms will be on hand to Apple, which always showed the best results in a competitive market struggle than the struggle with one big monopoly platform. In addition, the legal dispute resolved against the Android, the platform will provide a great advantage alliance Nokia and Microsoft, as well as strengthen the position of Oracle with its JavaME. But, of course, the impact of Android in the first place, will open huge opportunities for Apple, which has now gone far ahead of Nokia, RIM, HP / Palm, and Microsoft.
A similar situation occurred with BSD Unix in the early 1990s - tyh, while the legal issues have helped Linux to get ahead - this platform has a good head start before the BSD, which for several years, nearly forgotten, and only in the last 5 years, Apple, entrenched in the electronics market itself, BSD Unix back in popularity.
The date of the final trial of Oracle against Google is scheduled on October 31, the companies still have time to negotiate. But it is doubtful whether Oracle wants to surrender and to reduce the amount of compensation to claim. In addition, Oracle may continue the judicial struggle with Google to solve ITC, and to ban imports of U.S. mobile devices based on Android, which will be further development in the mobile market, Google devastating.
Wasn't the actual problem that they found these patent issues and asked Sun to clarify them but Sun took no action and left the issue in the middle?
GIR said:
Wasn't the actual problem that they found these patent issues and asked Sun to clarify them but Sun took no action and left the issue in the middle?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
good point !
Google should buy Oracle and start suing everyone else...
dbchoong said:
Google should buy Oracle and start suing everyone else...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Larry Ellison wouldn't allow that, he's as stubborn as Jobs.
Yawn.
This is the Samsung GS2 General forum on xda-DEVELOPERS
This should be in another forum.
dbchoong said:
Google should buy Oracle and start suing everyone else...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahahaha !
johncmolyneux said:
Yawn.
This is the Samsung GS2 General forum on xda-DEVELOPERS
This should be in another forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this should be OFF topic forum
avetny said:
this should be OFF topic forum
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. Get in touch with a mod and ask them to move it.
johncmolyneux said:
Agreed. Get in touch with a mod and ask them to move it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thank you
Here's a quick summary of what's going on. The main issue here is that Oracle used to be on the other side but now started agressively attack OS projects since it aqcuired Sun.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/05/google-responds-to-oracles-android-patent-lawsuit-we-break-it/
Google knew, and also admitted to knowing, about the licensing issues but because they had faith in Sun they pushed forward, never ever imagening Oracle would turn on them so quickly.
I am deadly sure that Google will stand out to protect their Android partners.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
EFF made a compelling case for jailbreaking smartphones, electronic tablets and gaming consoles.
Here is a part from the article:
"The DMCA is supposed to block copyright infringement. But instead it can be misused to threaten creators, innovators, and consumers, discouraging them from making full and fair use of their own property," said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. "Hobbyists and tinkerers who want to modify their phones or video game consoles to run software programs of their choice deserve protection under the law. So do artists and critics who use short excerpts of video content to create new works of commentary and criticism. Copyright law shouldn't be stifling such uses – it should be encouraging them."
https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/2012_dmca_exemption_requests_no_appendix.pdf
bump, just feel like this needs to be shared with everyone.
Hi there LineageOS (LOS) enthusiasts
Could the following security vulnerabilities exposed by WikiLeaks on March 7, 2017 affect LOS? Official press release at https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/#PRESS
"Vault 7" reveals numerous CIA 'zero day' vulnerabilities in Android phones. Read more and source at:
• https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/839124979367174144
• https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_11629096.html
• https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/839119536012001280
Still according to WikiLeaks, the CIA created huge amount of weaponized malware. Read more and source at:
• https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/839122455738339328
CIA hacking tools exploits Apollo to make Android phones bulk-spy on you via WiFi networks around you. Apollo is a default music app in CyanogenMod (CM) 11 and earlier. Read more at:
• https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/839210002694942725
• https://www.reddit.com/r/td_uncenso..._method_of_snooping_wifi_data_through_mobile/
Android Exploit/Tool Coverage at https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_21561399.html
Here are two classified CIA's manuals with more technical information for software engineers. About how the CIA's malware infest and hack Linux based operating systems such as Android:
• Summary: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/839151511838015488
• Manual 1: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/files/DevelopersGuide.pdf
• Manual 2: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/files/UsersGuide.pdf
Any other volunteers interested to find more technical information for software engineers? Preferably with technical examples of how to produce the security vulnerabilities.
Currently 339 Vault 7's documents are related to CIA's Android hacking tools at https://search.wikileaks.org/?query...w_search=False&order_by=most_relevant#results
Search all Vault 7: CIA hacking tools at https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/
Cheers,
Francewhoa
Edward Snowden is currently reviewing WikiLeaks published documents about Vault 7 security vulnerabilities.
Snowden wrote:
• "Still working through the publication, but what @wikileaks has here is genuinely a big deal. Looks authentic." Source at https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/839157182872576000
• "the docs show iOS/Android are what got hacked - a much bigger problem." Source at https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/839155787226316800
• "Evidence mounts showing CIA & FBI knew about catastrophic weaknesses in the most-used smartphones in America, but kept them open -- to spy." Source at https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/839193727751098368
Today I tried to report those potential security vulnerabilities by using LOS bug tracking system. But it does not allow to create new bug report tickets. Related discussions at https://www.reddit.com/r/LineageOS/...s_jira_closed_on_weekdays_to_bug_submissions/
Do you know another option to report those potential security vulnerabilities to LOS maintainers?
I reported those potential security vulnerabilities to https://www.reddit.com/r/LineageOS/comments/5y1z86/vault_7_security_vulnerabilities/
And also to #lineageos on Freenode
Yes, I'm sure some of those exploits would still be effective on LOS or any/most Nougat ROMs. Though some would no longer work given updates & patches since first discovered. But no doubt there are also newly discovered exploits discovered since. Then of course there are a whole lot more not mentioned as they have been developed by other nations and hackers! It's a constant battle and always will be, all devices will be susceptible to exploits in some way, I believe, even on hardened OS like Copperhead, though of course it would be much much harder.
Whats most interesting to me (as nothing above is particularly unexpected to me) is the suggestion it's the Russians who have released it so that Trump can use it against his own agencies.
Also Trumps old S4 (running stock you would assume) would have been a cinch to hack, especially as by all accounts he's not at app tech literate!
About the alleged Russian interference speculations. Could the CIA be trying to divert your attention from the content of WikiLeaks' Vault 7?
Could WikiLeaks source be a U.S. whistleblower and insider? WikiLeak wrote: "The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive." Source at https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/
Here is a statement from the source. "In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public, including whether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency. The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons." Source at https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/
For those not familiar with whistleblower, there are some information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
Francewhoa said:
About the alleged Russian interference speculations. Could the CIA be trying to divert your attention from the content of WikiLeaks' Vault 7?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, sure could
Could WikiLeaks source be a U.S. whistleblower and insider? WikiLeak wrote: "The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive." Source at https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, and probably most likely.
Let's hope all this results in fixes that make our phones more secure, though by most accounts it sounds like many of these exploits had already been patched.
Edit: wish I had time to read all the links!