Opt out of Samsung's mandatory arbitration provision asap

Opt out of Samsung's mandatory arbitration provision asap - Galaxy S III General (US Carriers)

Samsung allows you to opt out of their mandatory arbitration proceedings which prevent you from joining a class action suit. This must be done within 30 calendar days of purchasing the phone (my reading of the word purchase is explained in the sample letter below). The purchase date is most likely to be the date of delivery though it may be the date you were charged or the date it was shipped. I am not a lawyer and in no way am I representing that what I am providing below is in anyway effective or true nor am I representing that it will not in any way backfire on you. The instructions on page 63 of the warranty manual ask for only four pieces of information. You can send those pieces of information to the email address they provide or you can call them. I used my IMEI, but you can use MEID or serial number.
The email address to send it to is [email protected] or you can call 888-987-4357. This will not affect your limited warranty.
To Whom it May Concern:
As per the instructions on page 63 of the Samsung Galaxy S3 "Product Safety & Warranty Information" booklet, I am hereby providing notice that I am opting out of mandatory arbitration procedure provision and its limitation on class actions. I reserve my right to make use of the procedure and its terms should I choose to, but this notice serves to inform you that I will not be bound by the procedure nor its terms.
This notice comes within thirty (30) days of my purchase and I certify that the following information is correct to the best of my knowledge and should satisfy the notice requirements for opt out. They are correct as of today [date goes here], but I make no representation that my address will not change in the future nor does Samsung require explicitly or implicitly that I notify them of a change of address. Additionally, the date below is the date on which I provided payment to [Carrier] for the device and not the date of the pre-order. Goods were at time of contract fungible and so not identified. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a purchase does not take place until a sale has taken place (UCC 1-201); a sale does not take place until title has passed to the buyer (UCC 2-106); finally title does not pass until performance has been completed which in this case was when delivery was completed (See UCC 2-406). Even if goods were identified at time of shipment by [carrier], this email will still be received within thirty (30) days of purchase under the law. The prior information regarding the law is not provided as advice nor is it necessarily an accurate representation of the law of every state or even my own. It is provided as evidence of my own understanding of the terms at this time and why I have put down the date below that I have. I do not certify that I will never take a contrary position in court or arbitration.
A) Name and Address:
B) Date of Purchase:
C) Product Name and or Model: [Color] Samsung Galaxy S III for [wireless provider] (16 gigabyte edition)
D) IMEI:
Please alert me if you object to anything stated above, but in no way should your objection to anything stated above serve as sufficient to reject my notice that I am opting out to the fullest degree under the law to the mandatory arbitration procedure provision.
Sincerely Yours,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This version assumes you ordered it via shipment from your carrier. Change it appropriately if you ordered from a third party or bought it in store.
If you want to prevent any issues. Just write them with the info in ABCD or call them. I chose to do it this way because I wanted to provide them with notice of the terms I expected. Also note that the UCC article 2 does not apply in Louisiana so I don't know what you guys should put.
I'm doing this so that if there is a class action I can participate. Feel free to spread the word.

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly does this constitute?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda premium

I am curious as to what this is all about.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda premium

So as is, we can not join a class action lawsuit should one arise as it relates to the GS3....but if we do this opt out, we aren't agreeing to the terms that prevent us from doing so and are free to join if need be?

Is this regarding the verizon locked bootloaders ?
Sent from my SGH-I747M using xda app-developers app

Samsung in the warranty says that you agree to go to arbitration and not court if you want to sue them unless you give them 30 days notice from purchase. The point of this is that should there EVER be a problem with ANYTHING regarding this phone, you will be able to sue them in court as opposed to having to go to mandatory arbitration. The way I wrote it is to say basically "I want to opt out but I want to be able to invoke the arbitration agreement should I choose to do so" Read page 63 of the warranty booklet.
This applies to any carrier though check your booklet as I only have verizon.

the problem with this is there is no active acceptance this piece of paper would never stand in court. no signature no accept button = i threw the manual out the day i got the phone because i never need to read them anyways.

registered mail or a process server is required to have this carry any real effect in a court of law. Also, the suggested letter in the OP has several flaws. Do not use as is.
That said, opting out is a good move.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda premium

Sears Holdings Corporation also has a mandatory arbitration clause that would prevent you from joining a class action if you, as an employee, wanted to sue the company. I'm sure all the corporate giants have this type of wording shoved somewhere you can't easily find it.

phzi said:
registered mail or a process server is required to have this carry any real effect in a court of law. Also, the suggested letter in the OP has several flaws. Do not use as is.
That said, opting out is a good move.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then what would you suggest?

Gadgetz said:
Well then what would you suggest?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
get a life and forget this stupid "Ned Flanders" thread ?

If this device were something that was going to cost me thousands of dollars to fix, or cause me some sort of personal injury I'd bother to opt out...
As it stands, should something happen, either I'm going to be out my initial $250 + contract, which I highly doubt would be the case even in arbitration...
OR.. something horrible will happen such as phones blowing up next to peoples ears or something and "I" was a victim.. in which case, suing won't even be needed.. just the threat/actions of the media alone would make you get whatever you are due in compensation anyway.
Bottom line... no reason to fear arbitration for a $200-500 device.
And of course there's the 'historical' number of times where suing has ever gotten people anything in the realm of cell phones.. I cannot even recall a single case ending up in the courts nor arbitration that was ever in the media or internet. (Yes lawsuits have happened in the past but almost always for fraudlant claims, ala "Microwaving a phone and claiming it blew up")

phzi said:
registered mail or a process server is required to have this carry any real effect in a court of law. Also, the suggested letter in the OP has several flaws. Do not use as is.
That said, opting out is a good move.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course it would hold up. They specified in the agreement that's what they wanted. Notices clauses are included in many types of contracts/licenses. Also if there are flaws, do point them out and don't just be vague.

Related

ATT no longer unlocking cellphones

I tried my usual method of unlocking my new Aria as per my post in another thread and just received this email replay after the customer service person from the ATT unlock team could not immediately produce an unlcok code for me...
-----Original Message-----
From: Southeast SIM Unlock Code [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:38 PM
To: dezufnoC
Subject: AT&Device Unlock CT ode Request - CM20100689_11141342
Dear Valued Customer,
Unfortunately, your request for a device-unlock code has been denied.
AT&T Mobility has exclusive marketing rights on this device and it is
not eligible to be unlocked, even for international travel. This is due
to a recent nationwide handset unlocking settlement that went into
effect July 1st, 2010. For further assistance please call
1-800-331-0500 or 001-916-843-4685 if outside of the U.S.
Additionally, you may refer to www.attlockinglawsuits.com for
information on the recent settlement.
IMEI: 3XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Make: HTC
Model: A6366 Aria
The information in this e-mail is confidential and privileged; it is
intended for use solely by the individual or entity named as the
recipient hereof. Disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the
contents of this e-mail by persons other than the intended recipient is
strictly prohibited and may violate applicable laws. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please delete the original message and
call the above toll free number.
This email box is unmonitored; please do not respond to this message.
Thank You,
The AT&T Unlock Team
Has anyone heard this? I guess now the only way to do it is with a 3rd party vendor.

Your subject is incorrect, you should make it relevant to the information you posted...

khaytsus said:
Your subject is incorrect, you should make it relevant to the information you posted...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
? Makes sense to me, it's a bummer to hear though. So much for "world" phones
Sent from my HTC Liberty using XDA App

ryan92084 said:
? Makes sense to me, it's a bummer to hear though. So much for "world" phones
Sent from my HTC Liberty using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Post specifically states that AT&T is not unlocking phones. It's not true. They are not unlocking specific phones. In this case because nobody else has the Aria. You are correct, however, they are locking the Aria to state side.
That said, I'd think it's already unlockable if you really want?

The subject line is incorrect as I also have just had a conversation with our ATT Business Line rep who emphatically stated that I *can* have my devices unlocked *after 90 days*.

xdafly said:
The subject line is incorrect as I also have just had a conversation with our ATT Business Line rep who emphatically stated that I *can* have my devices unlocked *after 90 days*.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, so business as usual It's always been 90 days.

So what is the real story
Sorry if my information was not specific. I should have said the Aria phone is not being unlocked by ATT. Fine I got it. Now if you have a real comment about that then post it.
xdafly....what phone were you discussing with them? Was it the Aria that they said emphatically would be unlocked after 90 days? If so then that is quite different from my email.

If you read the link in the email it says you can unlock after ninety days
Sent from my HTC Liberty using XDA App

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
AT&T Mobility agrees to give to its eligible AT&T Wireless, Cingular and AT&T Mobility current and former customers, upon request and where available, codes that unlock AT&T Wireless, Cingular and AT&T Mobility handsets other than (i) the Apple iPhone; or (ii) any handset that AT&T Mobility introduces or has introduced for sale pursuant to a contract with a handset manufacturer that provides for an exclusivity period of ten (10) months or longer (“AT&T Handset”).
Unlock codes for AT&T Handsets will be provided to eligible postpaid customers who have completed a minimum of ninety (90) days of active service with AT&T Wireless, Cingular or AT&T Mobility and who are in good standing and current in their payments at the time of the request. For AT&T Handsets for which AT&T Mobility has an exclusive sales arrangement with a manufacturer of less than 10 months, the period of exclusivity associated with that sale must have expired before an unlocking code can be obtained.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure you've visited the website they linked to you? Otherwise, feel free to read the above excerpt.

so they are requiring that you have the device for 90 days before you can request to unlock it? interesting. in the past, my experience has always been if you have been a customer for more than 90 days they unlock it.

mattbollenbach said:
so they are requiring that you have the device for 90 days before you can request to unlock it? interesting. in the past, my experience has always been if you have been a customer for more than 90 days they unlock it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly the point. I have been a customer with them since 2000 so this was something new that they threw out to me.

yeah, my family has had at&t since when they were still cingular, haha.
it seems they'd have some consideration for such long term customers.

khaytsus said:
Post specifically states that AT&T is not unlocking phones. It's not true. They are not unlocking specific phones. In this case because nobody else has the Aria. You are correct, however, they are locking the Aria to state side.
That said, I'd think it's already unlockable if you really want?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do we unlock Aria? I am new to Android environment and travelling in August. Any links or help would be appreciated.
Thanks

mattbollenbach said:
so they are requiring that you have the device for 90 days before you can request to unlock it? interesting. in the past, my experience has always been if you have been a customer for more than 90 days they unlock it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you have to be 90 days into the contract, it's always been that way. However there are always exceptions to things, just depends on who and how you ask sometimes.
OP, I suggest you call the customer service line and ask again. Tell them you need it for international travel etc etc... Remind them they on their own web page say it's a world phone..
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-ph...device=HTC+Aria+(TM)+-+Black&q_sku=sku4720254
Be polite, be forgiving.. If they say no, thank them, hang up, call back. If you're a brand new AT&T customer I doubt you'll get much help honestly, but if you've had service for a while and this is just a new contract etc, I suspect if you ask enough times you'll get the information.
If all else fails, $16..
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=730028&highlight=unlock

For those that did not read the linked settlement it states that if the phone is exclusive to AT&T and it has not been 10 months from the release of the phone they will not give you an unlock code. Since the Aria is exclusive and came out the end of June it will be next April before you can get an unlock code pursuant to the settlement agreement unless another carrier comes out with the same handset then you just need to have the phone for 90 days.
I am sure they may bend the rules for some but other reps may stick to the settlement.

I thought we were boycotting Motorola.

Did no one watch XDA developer TV last week. We are suppose to send Motorola a message by not buying or developing for their products so they start playing by the community way. Releasing source code, updating devices that they promised to update, etc. Just saying if we are going to work as a community we should all follow the advice of others that are recommending a complete boycott of said devices. What do you think?

INTEL INSIDE. X86. Will buy this device when devs start to release roms. And motorola is changed i think, they relased sources. INTEL, you can unlock bootloader,INTEL, and they use intel processors INSIDE! lol
Trolling mode off: Tell me, why i have to boycot motorola? Best materials, best signal strenght, best radio, best SoC. They relased sources, the opened a site wich in you can unlock the bootloader. Please explain.
(sorry for my terrible english)

vvveith said:
Did no one watch XDA developer TV last week. We are suppose to send Motorola a message by not buying or developing for their products so they start playing by the community way. Releasing source code, updating devices that they promised to update, etc. Just saying if we are going to work as a community we should all follow the advice of others that are recommending a complete boycott of said devices. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Motorola gave 5 free RAZR M Developer editions to US power-users (including myself and P3Droid).
Motorola has always released their source code for kernels... more timely than some but still could use some upload checkers hehe.
I got jellybean leaks for the RAZR M and RAZR HD.. and hopefully soon for RAZR i.
My bootloader is unlocked...
Boycotting this doesn't make sense. The old Motorola yes. Verizon yes. The new Motorola? Not so much. Every device released since they announced their unlock program has an option to be unlocked, and for Verizon they had to make a separate Developer Edition since they are the bad guys here. If anyone should be boycotted its Verizon for requiring locked bootloaders for retail devices and killing unlimited data.
Cheers

You can boycott them if you want, but I'll continue to buy Motorola devices. They rival HTC in build quality, and the radios can't be matched. Plus, they actually make form factors that I want. Motorola was the only one to make a portrait QWERTY with decent specs (and they were the first at all, as far as I can remember). That gave me 2 more years before I had to make the switch to a stupid slab. Now, they're the only ones making a small device with high end specs. Samsung's attempt at that, announced on Thursday, is a joke.

If all on xda boycotted Motorola I doubt they would notice? Anyway, no use cutting your nose off to spite your face. I certainly agree that their radios are by far better than their competitors. Now under the wing of Google I'm hoping they have changed. Time will tell!
Sent from my XT890 using xda premium

I watched this video.
paul89rulez said:
INTEL INSIDE. X86. Will buy this device when devs start to release roms. And motorola is changed i think, they relased sources. INTEL, you can unlock bootloader,INTEL, and they use intel processors INSIDE! lol
Trolling mode off: Tell me, why i have to boycot motorola? Best materials, best signal strenght, best radio, best SoC. They relased sources, the opened a site wich in you can unlock the bootloader. Please explain.
(sorry for my terrible english)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I watched this video and always figured that the host was more informed of behind the scene information then I was. So now am I to believe that what he says is not based on fact? Does anyone censor these video hosts to make sure what they say is actually based in reality? I always turn to the community here to decide if I should invest in a certain product or app. I read countless user reviews and listen to XDA developer TV to make a final buying decision. I think that people that are more in the public eye as representatives of the community should be accountable for the information the are allowed to share. I guess this host just has a lot of hot air based in fantasy? That's all I was commenting about, He must be very misinformed. Sad really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7HrYgO6uP4&feature=relmfu

vvveith said:
I watched this video and always figured that the host was more informed of behind the scene information then I was. So now am I to believe that what he says is not based on fact? Does anyone censor these video hosts to make sure what they say is actually based in reality? I always turn to the community here to decide if I should invest in a certain product or app. I read countless user reviews and listen to XDA developer TV to make a final buying decision. I think that people that are more in the public eye as representatives of the community should be accountable for the information the are allowed to share. I guess this host just has a lot of hot air based in fantasy? That's all I was commenting about, He must be very misinformed. Sad really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7HrYgO6uP4&feature=relmfu
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All the information he gave is public, so he's not any more informed than any of the rest of us. He's only more informed than those who don't follow tech news, and those people don't care and weren't going to boycott anyway. Also, all his information is not completely accurate. The $100 rebate is not only for Verizon customers. The list includes several phones that are not Verizon phones. You can verify that for yourself here.
Ultimately, though, he's not misinformed. Motorola did lock bootloaders, they did push updates to an even later date, and they did cancel the updates for a few phones. He just has a different reaction to the information than I, and many others, do. He believes we should boycott Motorola to get them to change. As somebody who has an avenue to get their opinion out there, of course he's going to put his opinion out there. Personally, I think boycotting Verizon would be a better solution, because it's pretty clear that they are 90% of the problem. The new RAZR M/i and RAZR HD are only locked down on Verizon. In every other country they've been released in, they are unlockable. Motorola really doesn't care if you unlock your bootloader or not, because if you do, they don't have to warranty your phone. Verizon, though, for whatever reason, does seem to care.
The truth is, there will never be a widespread boycott of either Motorola or Verizon for this issue. For a boycott to be effective, you have to have a very large number of people upset about something. The number of people upset about locked bootloaders and a lack of updates is pretty low in the grand scheme of things. Most customers have no idea what a bootloader even is, and couldn't care less if they got an update or not. Then there's the fact that Verizon sells far more than just Motorola devices, so even if every Verizon customer that was pissed about the Motorola devices decided to boycott Verizon, it still wouldn't be a majority of those 100+ million customers.

Thank you, Very WELL said!!
freak4dell said:
All the information he gave is public, so he's not any more informed than any of the rest of us. He's only more informed than those who don't follow tech news, and those people don't care and weren't going to boycott anyway. Also, all his information is not completely accurate. The $100 rebate is not only for Verizon customers. The list includes several phones that are not Verizon phones. You can verify that for yourself here.
Ultimately, though, he's not misinformed. Motorola did lock bootloaders, they did push updates to an even later date, and they did cancel the updates for a few phones. He just has a different reaction to the information than I, and many others, do. He believes we should boycott Motorola to get them to change. As somebody who has an avenue to get their opinion out there, of course he's going to put his opinion out there. Personally, I think boycotting Verizon would be a better solution, because it's pretty clear that they are 90% of the problem. The new RAZR M/i and RAZR HD are only locked down on Verizon. In every other country they've been released in, they are unlockable. Motorola really doesn't care if you unlock your bootloader or not, because if you do, they don't have to warranty your phone. Verizon, though, for whatever reason, does seem to care.
The truth is, there will never be a widespread boycott of either Motorola or Verizon for this issue. For a boycott to be effective, you have to have a very large number of people upset about something. The number of people upset about locked bootloaders and a lack of updates is pretty low in the grand scheme of things. Most customers have no idea what a bootloader even is, and couldn't care less if they got an update or not. Then there's the fact that Verizon sells far more than just Motorola devices, so even if every Verizon customer that was pissed about the Motorola devices decided to boycott Verizon, it still wouldn't be a majority of those 100+ million customers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that's some information I can rap my head around. However, let me add one thing that Verizon does seem to care about besides money: They are one of the only service providers I have found that blocks text scam premium service providers. I recently received a text from some supposed event notifications service that I did not solicit. I of course paid no attention to it and deleted the text off my phone. When I was about to pay my bill I noticed an irregularity in the amount. $9.99 charged for a monthly membership fee. After notifying T Mobile of the fraud, they credited my account and told me if I wanted to block such services that I had to pay them $9.99 a month to have that feature. Or I could accept a block on all messages that come through their premium text services for free. I opted for the second and all of my important financial institutions were than blocked as well. After doing research on the web I found millions of cases of this same thing and the only provider not to have any complaints about it was Verizon! I was thinking of switching over to them when my term with T Mobile ends. But now that you have informed me of something else, I guess I'll stay away from them as well. Any other information that you can share would be very much appreciated. I know that we actually vote with our cash so even though it seems like one person is a small amount of revenue that won't be missed, when millions of us make the same decision I believe it does have an impact. Who knows? I guess I'll renew with T Mobile because it seems like no matter which service provider you choose, there always will be some shady business practices going on. Guess you have to choice the least of two evils, kind of like voting for a president. To bad XDA does not have a mobile provider of it's own with it's own devices as well. LOL

vvveith said:
Now that's some information I can rap my head around. However, let me add one thing that Verizon does seem to care about besides money: They are one of the only service providers I have found that blocks text scam premium service providers. I recently received a text from some supposed event notifications service that I did not solicit. I of course paid no attention to it and deleted the text off my phone. When I was about to pay my bill I noticed an irregularity in the amount. $9.99 charged for a monthly membership fee. After notifying T Mobile of the fraud, they credited my account and told me if I wanted to block such services that I had to pay them $9.99 a month to have that feature. Or I could accept a block on all messages that come through their premium text services for free. I opted for the second and all of my important financial institutions were than blocked as well. After doing research on the web I found millions of cases of this same thing and the only provider not to have any complaints about it was Verizon! I was thinking of switching over to them when my term with T Mobile ends. But now that you have informed me of something else, I guess I'll stay away from them as well. Any other information that you can share would be very much appreciated. I know that we actually vote with our cash so even though it seems like one person is a small amount of revenue that won't be missed, when millions of us make the same decision I believe it does have an impact. Who knows? I guess I'll renew with T Mobile because it seems like no matter which service provider you choose, there always will be some shady business practices going on. Guess you have to choice the least of two evils, kind of like voting for a president. To bad XDA does not have a mobile provider of it's own with it's own devices as well. LOL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm...I didn't know that about T-Mobile's service. I have that block on my account, too, since I got a fraudulent $9.99 charge a couple months ago. I don't really subscribe to texts from many places, but it sucks if I don't have the ability to.

I had them unblock me again!
freak4dell said:
Hmm...I didn't know that about T-Mobile's service. I have that block on my account, too, since I got a fraudulent $9.99 charge a couple months ago. I don't really subscribe to texts from many places, but it sucks if I don't have the ability to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I now receive text from my financial institutions and was given these procedures to follow if I receive anymore unwanted texts. Forward a copy of the offending text to 7726 immediately followed by a blank text to 4647. That will permanently block the text sender and also get them investigated for legitimacy. So I guess it's a slight pain in the ass but I need to receive important information from my bank or credit institutions anytime there is activity so I can verify that it is me making the activity happen and is approved.

Unlocking now Illegal

I'm not sure if anyone has seen this but I found it pretty cool that they used a picture of our trusty OG incredible...
http://www.longisland.com/news/01-27-13/unlocking-smarthphones-now-illegal.html
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium

RepeatUntilTheEnd said:
I'm not sure if anyone has seen this but I found it pretty cool that they used a picture of our trusty OG incredible...
http://www.longisland.com/news/01-27-13/unlocking-smarthphones-now-illegal.html
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Damn government, always screwing the little guy. Oh well its not like its going to stop people from doing it anyways. I have been seriously thinking of switching my service to straight talk, and this news changes nothing. Tell them to come get me.

RepeatUntilTheEnd said:
I'm not sure if anyone has seen this but I found it pretty cool that they used a picture of our trusty OG incredible...
http://www.longisland.com/news/01-27-13/unlocking-smarthphones-now-illegal.html
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know why they picked a CDMA phone for the picture when usually only GSM phones are even unlockable for carriers. Technically flashing an inc on straight talk is not unlocking it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

tiny4579 said:
I don't know why they picked a CDMA phone for the picture when usually only GSM phones are even unlockable for carriers. Technically flashing an inc on straight talk is not unlocking it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None of the articles I've read mention the N4, or how comparable the price is to phones on contract. I guess I can't really talk, since I'm still with big red.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium

The Nexus 4 comes unlocked. I guess it's above the law then.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app

Ah yes, leave it to the government to try to forbid people from messing with the device that they paid for. Well, it's not as if it'll stop anything whatsoever.

This is kind of disturbing if you ask me...
Sent from my ADR6300 using xda app-developers app

One good thing is that the law only applies to phones purchased after the law goes into affect - so anything before that is fine to unlock.
Sent from my ADR6300 using xda app-developers app

scals37 said:
This is kind of disturbing if you ask me...
Sent from my ADR6300 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the gift that keeps on giving to lawyers and corporati.
Incidentally, a few clarifications. I see people making the same wrong assumptions about this ruling again and again.
1.) Unlocking your phone is not illegal. What IS illegal is for you, the end-consumer, to unlock or otherwise edit the firmware/OS installed on the phone from the factory. This means that we, the citizenry of XDA and similar forums, are guilty of violations of the DMCA, because the carriers (Sprint, ATT, VZW, etc) actually hold the copyrights to the firmware's installed on the phone.
1a.) The carriers, however, CAN unlock the phone for you, legally. Most of the carriers have come forward and said that they will still unlock devices so long as you have met your original contract obligations. Now, this is great if you've bought a new device. Unfortunately, it means any Non-pay or otherwise blacklisted phone on Craigslist or ebay is still screwed.
1b.) New, Unlocked devices such as Nexus, Galaxy, and Incredible International are still, and will always remain, legally unlocked. The firmware found on these devices is owned by Google or by the device's original manufacture, and they are unlikely to proactively start locking such devices just to lock out the reseller community.
2.) Any device purchased or unlocked prior to January 26, 2013 can still be legally unlocked and used on any compatible network.
2a.) Carriers won't retroactively kick your device off of their network if it is illegally unlocked. Nor can they impose any special usage fines or taxes of utilizing an unlocked device. A "locked" cellphone is one which has been firmware coded to its own carrier's network.
2b.) The only person or group who can take action against you for illegally unlocking your phone is the Librarian of Congress (who made this ruling and is the conservator of DMCA exception law) or the carrier who originally sold the device to you, as they are the ones holding the copyrights to the firmware. They cannot, generally, tell some other network to not host your device. Obviously they can ASK a competitor not to host your unlocked device, but they can't actually stop them doing so.
2c.) The original vendor of the phone (Sprint, ATT, VZW, etc) can, however, sue you under the DMCA for violating their copyrights. This is identical to lawsuits used to penalize movie and music downloaders. However, since phone unlocks are generally not "shared" in the same way that music, movie, and game downloads are, an aggressive lawsuit by a patent troll or copyright bully holds little potential profit because they'd only be able to claim a single violation, not the sort of perpetual resharing that goes on with torrent users.
3.) While jailbreaking/unlocking/rooting a phone is illegal now, re-romming a phone is still a grey area. IE, completely replacing the firmware on your phone with a homebrew is not illegal in the same way that a simple unlock or jailbreak code is. Since you're not technically changing someone else's copyright protected software so much as simply deleting and replacing it.
3a.) Unfortunately, because most custom roms are still based in one form or another on the factory rom, you MIGHT still be sued unless, as in the case of older devices like the DINC, all original drivers and firmware's have been open-sourced to the community. It's unlikely that HTC would go after someone unlocking an Incredible series phone since you can legally root most HTC devices from their website; but other carriers and manufacturer's may not take the same view in the future.
There is also a division between hardware manufacturer's and carriers. Carriers lobbied long and hard FOR this ruling, because it is in their best interest to keep you chained to them for as long as possible, and a person who just spent several hundred dollars on a device is unlikely to be willing to simply ****can that device at the end of two years in order to move to another carrier and repeat the expensive process with a new device (unless you own an apple product, in which you're already indoctrinated to all of this ). Sell such a device, yes; dispose of it, no. So having a locked device makes you stickier since you'll use it for longer before parting with it, and if you can only use it legally on their network, then you are stuck with them since you can't resell/unlock it to recoup even part of your investment as you can currently by simply unlocking it or having a reseller do it for you.
Device manufacturers, on the other hand, have a vested interest in keeping their units in use as long as possible, regardless of what carrier it is operating on. Having a unit of hardware able to be reused on multiple carriers breeds customer loyalty to the hardware manufacturer in the same way a reliable car or home appliance does, and increasingly people are seeking out devices based not on the name of the carrier but the name of the phone. Already it's a lot less common to ask who a carrier is than what a phone is; particularly when the same device is available on multiple competing networks.
The best we can hope for is that this will all come to a head in 2 years as the first generation of legally locked phones start coming up for resale and people find themselves face with either throwing them away, sticking with their current carrier, or breaking the law.

What I find curious...
In every article and argument I have read; the carriers framed the argument around "Unlocking / Rooting so we can change service providers." If I were a phone carrier, I wouldn't want my customers to be able to leave either. Sounds reasonable on the surface.
However....I think most of us would agree, that the vast majority do NOT unlock and root for the sake of changing carriers. In fact that argument is already very weak and flawed,
With two standards (GSM vs CDMA), some technical differences in phone models that prevent differing networks from connecting with the devices, and only a handful of carriers....you don't have a lot of options...so not much point.
The phone carriers can refuse service to devices they didn't sell and were in no way required to do so, however it would be in their long-term interest.
The steep financial penalty for leaving a carrier before the contract expires easily covers the "subsidy" at the time of purchase.
Basically....rooting just to switch carriers doesn't make sense
What do we unlock/root for?
Control of our devices.
Control of our privacy and data.
"Fixing" the bugs ( ask me about the ASUS Transformer ICS updates...HA!!!)
Excessive bloatware, like three book reading apps on my tablet...(seriously)
Customizing the device to our needs
...the list is long and the consumers don't have a voice in these issues.. Worse yet to my opinion, this legal ruling actually cripples the end user. Without root access the task of managing and monitor apps, permissions, data, etc has more challenges and limitations , especially without any Android "stock" apps for the purpose. I mean, they didn't even make a file manager. I'll spare you all my usual Google rant. Just imagine what the teaming millions of non-tech, non-xda have to live with....when was the last time you had to work with a device without Titanium Backup, Root Explorer and such? (scares me)
Sorry, my point is...they used a bogus argument to get what they wanted, with them in control of our property and data.
Final thought..how long do you think it will take before we see the first "Price gouging/manipulation" lawsuits against the carriers? They price an unlocked phone so high that no one purchases them. I get it, why pay $650 for a phone with no contract, but you pay the same monthly charges.....when you can get one for $50 and two years of contract? Also, for the record, I do believe that the legality of unlocking/rooting only applies to carrier subsidized devices made and purchased after the above date, and not ones sold at full retail, purposefully unlocked. I'm no expert, but just based on the price differences between 3g/4g and WiFi only tablets, you frakkin know the carriers are messing around with pricing.
WOW...sorry for being long-winded and thanks!

Seems the White House agrees that we should be able to unlock our phones.
http://gizmodo.com/5988388/white-house-you-should-be-able-to-unlock-your-phone-if-you-own-it

The Ultimate reason to Why N3 Bootloader is locked

Read the article below.
Some might argue why T-Mobile and Sprint version N3 is unlocked that's because of their network coverage. If you do little research you will find that most of the giant firms use either Verizon or At&t for their employees. This now confirms how Saamy is forgetting about us and mostly putting their focus on giant firms. Give me your point and lets see where this goes.
TechnoBuffalo said:
Samsung already has a firm grip on the consumer smartphone market, but the enterprise sector is a completely different ballgame. So in an effort to put businesses at ease and gain a larger corporate following, the Korean company this year officially unveiled a new mobile security system called Knox. With so many Samsung devices available, the company certainly has the potential to make inroads at some big firms around the world—only, a new report from The Wall Street Journal suggests Knox has been full of bugs and delays, annoying some big clients.
One of Samsung’s clients, the U.S. Defense Department, has allegedly become frustrated by Samsung’s Knox system, leading to some internal strife among the Samsung brass; the company is supposedly hard at work bringing Knox back into 100 percent shape. With BlackBerry ailing—enterprise market share has reportedly fallen from 68 percent in 2010 to 5.4 percent today—Samsung certainly has an opportunity to fill that void. There’s still the stigma of Android to contend with, however, making Apple’s iOS a more appealing option.
According to WSJ, “many corporate tech administrators widely perceive its smartphones, which run on Google Inc.’s open-source Android operating system, as being more prone to viruses and easier to hack than Apple Inc.’s iOS and BlackBerry proprietary software.” Fixing that perception has become one of Samsung’s top priorities, WSJ added.
Knox essentially gives corporate tech admins complete control over their employees’ Samsung device or devices. Handsets can remotely be shut down, company data cordoned off, and alerts can be set if a device’s code has been tampered with—all excellent features for sensitive corporate data. But if those promised features aren’t working as advertised, especially for a customer such as the U.S. Defense Department, Samsung could lose its small portion of the enterprise market pretty quick.
One source admitted that Samsung isn’t a service business, which is why it’s experiencing so many issues. “Creating this new organization that specializes in selling software and services, that took us longer than expected,” the source said. Over the course of 2013, Samsung repeatedly assured potential clients Knox would be ready, and even come preloaded on the Galaxy S4. It didn’t wind up coming preloaded on a Samsung devices until the Note 3 hit a few months back.
Deployment thus far has been slow while Samsung works through the issues. But if those issues don’t get patched up, the company’s big enterprise push could fall flat. One BlackBerry exec said of Knox, “[It] can potentially pose threats to enterprises.” With the consumer market locked up, definitely not the start to enterprise life that Samsung would have wanted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/1...rogram-running-into-major-issues-says-report/

I would agree. Sounds right and does make sense!
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Does make sense until you wonder why other carriers have the bootloader unlocked. Unless those people saying the bootloader is unlocked they mean it has been unlocked by a hack.

Delakit said:
Does make sense until you wonder why other carriers have the bootloader unlocked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
85% of the Fortune 1K in the U.S. are on VZW and AT&T.

Im nkt sure this really explains why AT&T's bootloader is locked. This article discusses the issues with Knox, something that is present in the VZW Note 3 but missing from the ATT version. If the bootloader is locked due to trying to attract enterprise business then why would Knox (the container application) be missing from our version of the phone? Even if Knox is being wonky it still should have been included if they were going after the enterprise market.
AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note 3 stock rooted with changes by Wanam
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 GT-N8013 rooted w/Hyperdrive RLS6

This…..
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------
BarryH_GEG said:
85% of the Fortune 1K in the U.S. are on VZW and AT&T.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HappyPessimist said:
Im nkt sure this really explains why AT&T's bootloader is locked. This article discusses the issues with Knox, something that is present in the VZW Note 3 but missing from the ATT version. If the bootloader is locked due to trying to attract enterprise business then why would Knox (the container application) be missing from our version of the phone? Even if Knox is being wonky it still should have been included if they were going after the enterprise market.
AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note 3 stock rooted with changes by Wanam
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 GT-N8013 rooted w/Hyperdrive RLS6
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This and this....
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

HappyPessimist said:
Im nkt sure this really explains why AT&T's bootloader is locked. This article discusses the issues with Knox, something that is present in the VZW Note 3 but missing from the ATT version. If the bootloader is locked due to trying to attract enterprise business then why would Knox (the container application) be missing from our version of the phone? Even if Knox is being wonky it still should have been included if they were going after the enterprise market.
AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note 3 stock rooted with changes by Wanam
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 GT-N8013 rooted w/Hyperdrive RLS6
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure where you got your ATT N3 from, but mine has KNOX and it is a 900A like the others here. You can even look at running apps and see KNOX listed. you can also go into the upload menu and see the KNOX status.

It depends on Sammy's customer base spread. If the majority are suits, Sammy loses very little by losing the nerd market. But if the majority are teen-agers texting their BFF, Sammy is going to see that a little bad press in the Blogosphere goes a LONG way. The under-21 set will believe a blog stating that the Martians have landed faster than they'll believe the WSJ that the big yellow ball in the sky is the sun.
We'll just have to wait and see, but if Sammy keeps welding these things shut, a lot of ROM builders are going to be building non-Sammy ROMs. And a lot of people will put up with the Sprint dead spots rather than be treated like numbers by Big Red.
Since my crystal ball battery is dead, all I can do is make wild guesses.

Solarenemy68 said:
Not sure where you got your ATT N3 from, but mine has KNOX and it is a 900A like the others here. You can even look at running apps and see KNOX listed. you can also go into the upload menu and see the KNOX status.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm talking abiut the Knox container. The other variants of the Note 3 had a Knox app of sorts that acts as a container for more sensitive information. See this thread-
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2470278&page=8
AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note 3 stock rooted with changes by Wanam
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 GT-N8013 rooted w/Hyperdrive RLS6

Can't quote the guy above for some reason but I don't see KNOX running anywhere on my phone.

HappyPessimist said:
I'm talking abiut the Knox container. The other variants of the Note 3 had a Knox app of sorts that acts as a container for more sensitive information. See this thread-
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2470278&page=8
AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note 3 stock rooted with changes by Wanam
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 GT-N8013 rooted w/Hyperdrive RLS6
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
KNOX container most certainly works on 900A.

Quick question for everyone here...
Do you think that filing complaints with government agencies over the locked bootloader issue might be an effective route for seeking change? Consider that when complaints were filed against them for blocking FaceTime on their network, the groups that filed those complaints did achieve a limited measure of success.
I would envision that the complaint could look as follows:
1. Denying users root access to their own phones and locking the phone's bootloader prevents access to all features of some software packages. (e.g. Titanium Backup)
2. Some of the packages that AT&T effectively blocks through these policies (i.e. Titanium Backup) compete with software they offer. (e.g. AT&T Locker)
3. Ergo, AT&T seeks to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over other applications through its behavior.
I also wonder if it would be possible to argue that AT&T is knowingly selling defective phones through its policy of locking the bootloader. I'm sure we can all point out many bugs in the stock firmware which have been addressed by custom ROMs. An argument could be made that AT&T's action of preventing custom ROMs from being installed is forcing its customers to use materially defective equipment - it's just a question of whether or not an agency could be convinced of this amidst AT&T's "greasing of the palms" to quiet complaints against them.

now i'm clearly understand

Unless the private key slips, or if people don't care about warranty (in about 10 months ) the bootloader won't be unlocked.
Personally, I think this allows for more inventive solutions to processes which have become so routine we expect them to work on every phone. RDLV for example. The Kn0x0ut script. My MJ5 Recovery methods -- all include unique techniques to catch up to the level of security ATT/Samsung has surprised us with.
This process, of course, is cyclical. Both sides have an opportunity to gain here and I welcome it!

evilpotatoman said:
Unless the private key slips
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If I only worked for Samsung in a capacity to help...
evilpotatoman said:
or if people don't care about warranty (in about 10 months )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hopefully we don't have to wait that long for it... I'm almost ready to purchase a Note 3 from TMO just to have an unlocked bootloader. If I could get a new one locally for around $500 this weekend I probably would. (Just got the Note 3 this week so I'm still within my 14 day return period with ATT.)
evilpotatoman said:
Personally, I think this allows for more inventive solutions to processes which have become so routine we expect them to work on every phone. RDLV for example. The Kn0x0ut script. My MJ5 Recovery methods -- all include unique techniques to catch up to the level of security ATT/Samsung has surprised us with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm glad you and others enjoy the challenge presented by AT&T's greed, and am thankful for each of you and the hours you spend trying to figure out how to remove or bypass the artificially created limitations and restrictions on our devices.
In my opinion, limitations like locked bootloaders are material defects, and should be treated as such by government. Once one enters into a contract with the wireless provider, the phone is yours as long as you continue to abide by the terms of the contract (on time payments, staying within acceptable use policies). As such, one should be free and clear to modify the phone in any way - as long as expectations of service and support are diminished appropriately for "non standard configurations". No carrier should be allowed to lock bootloaders or otherwise take measures to prevent users from rooting their devices.

rooted_1 said:
Quick question for everyone here...
Do you think that filing complaints with government agencies over the locked bootloader issue might be an effective route for seeking change? Consider that when complaints were filed against them for blocking FaceTime on their network, the groups that filed those complaints did achieve a limited measure of success.
I would envision that the complaint could look as follows:
1. Denying users root access to their own phones and locking the phone's bootloader prevents access to all features of some software packages. (e.g. Titanium Backup)
2. Some of the packages that AT&T effectively blocks through these policies (i.e. Titanium Backup) compete with software they offer. (e.g. AT&T Locker)
3. Ergo, AT&T seeks to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over other applications through its behavior.
I also wonder if it would be possible to argue that AT&T is knowingly selling defective phones through its policy of locking the bootloader. I'm sure we can all point out many bugs in the stock firmware which have been addressed by custom ROMs. An argument could be made that AT&T's action of preventing custom ROMs from being installed is forcing its customers to use materially defective equipment - it's just a question of whether or not an agency could be convinced of this amidst AT&T's "greasing of the palms" to quiet complaints against them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm...
That actualy sounds like legit reasons!
Does AT&T sell the developer edition like Verizon?
I so want to come back to AT&T but had to jump ship to VZE because they had SafeStrap. How much I hate Verizon! They used to have best signal in town. Now its no better than Sprint.
Anyways back on topic. That seems like reasonable pitch. Where do we / you file that complaint? FCC? FTC?

Why not offer a corporate version? If you want to use it at work, you never have the corporate locked bootloader.
They could even make it a ROM update accessible by corporate accounts.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using xda app-developers app

designgears said:
KNOX container most certainly works on 900A.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure it works on the 900A, but I think he meant it's not on there by default for the 900A AT&T variant. Do you have an apk for it?

scrosler said:
Hmmm...
That actualy sounds like legit reasons!
Anyways back on topic. That seems like reasonable pitch. Where do we / you file that complaint? FCC? FTC?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I filed a complaint with the FCC the other week using the precise argument I suggested above. Of course, I've yet to hear anything from them. If it's anything like the net neutrality complaints I filed against AT&T years ago, the FCC will forward the comment along to AT&T and the company will provide a written response back to both me and the agency in a couple months.
I'm also wondering if there would be any sort of way to get the FTC involved in this as well, by making an argument that AT&T is knowingly selling defective devices, refusing to fix the defects in a timely manner (by releasing new versions of Android, quicker), and preventing users from fixing the defects on their own (by locking the bootloader). I'm sure that there's a plethora of issues with 4.3 and TouchWiz and Knox that could be pointed out... the least of which would be the constantly-nagging security error notification that shows up every time one uses WiFi on a stock phone.
I'm generally not a big fan of big government, but this is one exception. The more government agencies we can legitimately engage with valid points, the more effort that AT&T has to put into defending its decision to only market phones with locked bootloaders. If enough agencies get involved from enough angles with reasonable and logical arguments, there *may* come a time at which AT&T decides that it's not worth the effort. They obviously feel that some economic benefit come from their decision. The trick is to create the perception that the economic benefit they gain from locked bootloaders is outweighed by the ill will and cost of participation in government inquiries they bear. There's only a slim chance that this will work, but I'm willing to take a few minutes to file complaints and let the wheels of our government agencies churn. After all, isn't that what they're there for?

rooted_1 said:
I filed a complaint with the FCC the other week using the precise argument I suggested above. Of course, I've yet to hear anything from them. If it's anything like the net neutrality complaints I filed against AT&T years ago, the FCC will forward the comment along to AT&T and the company will provide a written response back to both me and the agency in a couple months.
I'm also wondering if there would be any sort of way to get the FTC involved in this as well, by making an argument that AT&T is knowingly selling defective devices, refusing to fix the defects in a timely manner (by releasing new versions of Android, quicker), and preventing users from fixing the defects on their own (by locking the bootloader). I'm sure that there's a plethora of issues with 4.3 and TouchWiz and Knox that could be pointed out... the least of which would be the constantly-nagging security error notification that shows up every time one uses WiFi on a stock phone.
I'm generally not a big fan of big government, but this is one exception. The more government agencies we can legitimately engage with valid points, the more effort that AT&T has to put into defending its decision to only market phones with locked bootloaders. If enough agencies get involved from enough angles with reasonable and logical arguments, there *may* come a time at which AT&T decides that it's not worth the effort. They obviously feel that some economic benefit come from their decision. The trick is to create the perception that the economic benefit they gain from locked bootloaders is outweighed by the ill will and cost of participation in government inquiries they bear. There's only a slim chance that this will work, but I'm willing to take a few minutes to file complaints and let the wheels of our government agencies churn. After all, isn't that what they're there for?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for doing this..
I feel the only way we will ever be heard is to start a Samsung boycott petition. Even if those who sign the petition has no plans to truly boycott Samsung, the negative publicity and the potential for consumers to boycott them would be a huge risk in Samsung eyes. Imagine if we had 10k users signed the boycott petition because of the bloatware & locked bootloader. Samsung could care less about the 10k consumers but the word of mouth from those consumer could equal millions. Samsung might not officially release an unlock bootloader but might allow leaks to occur to keep us quiet. If one website picked up the story about Samsung boycott petition, Samsung would do everything in their power to correct or fix the problem. Due to carrier restrictions and request they would have to come up with clever ways or do what htc does and allow you to unlock your phone on their site with a code.

UK investigatory powers bill - Google security updates/patches

In light of the new Investigatory powers act 2016 that has come into effect in UK, the new legislation stipulates that any telecommunications operator or electronic communication device manufacturer/software programme, has to include a backdoor access to allow decryption for probing and ''equipment inteference' by the relevant governing bodies.
This applies to all communication/device manufacturers/software that is currently sold in the UK.
The legislation also requires that any further software updates or new communication equipment be made available to certain governing bodies before the sale of software/devices, to allow a review and insertion of backdoor access, whether physically or via software programming.
Is anybody familiar with how this will apply to Google/android and the regular security updates that are provided to these devices? Will google promptly follow the requirements for this legislation, which would mean, the next security update will include this backdoor access?
This raises major concerns for the security and privacy for all google/android based handsets that are sold within the UK, as over 50 government organisations will be allowed to request probing and bypass of any encryption. What concerns me more so, is the misuse of this backdoor access by rogue hackers that unfortunately, may now be able to hack devices more easily with this backdoor access enforced by this new legislation.
As far as I am aware, other manufacturer software updates for their handsets are never as rapid as googles own devices to receive these updates, and I am thinking, does this mean the implementation of this backdoor access will be likely to be included in either December 2016 or January 2017?
Will google issue this backdoor access for only handsets connected in the UK or will it be a worldwide update?
If anybody has any relevant information to elucidate me on this, it would be greatly appreciated, as unfortunately, the new legislation also includes a gagging clause, which prohibits any manufacturer or software programme/oS, from revealing if/when a backdoor access has been initialized.

Wow. If this is true, and I were Google, Apple etc. I would not adhere to this local legislation. How hard is it for the local authorities to prove they need the info on a device in order to get a court order to get access to said device? Sounds to me like they just want an excuse to probe any and all devices regardless of their need for the info on them.
Edit: I just looked it up, it doesn't seem to state anything about manufacturers having to allow a back door. It states that the government has the authority to hack, look for and retain personal information. So in short, no. Google will not allow this. The UK will have to learn to hack their way in just like anyone else.
Also, Canada has basically been doing this for quite some time.. maybe not to the extent the UK wants to..

k.s.deviate said:
Wow. If this is true, and I were Google, Apple etc. I would not adhere to this local legislation. How hard is it for the local authorities to prove they need the info on a device in order to get a court order to get access to said device? Sounds to me like they just want an excuse to probe any and all devices regardless of their need for the info on them.
Edit: I just looked it up, it doesn't seem to state anything about manufacturers having to allow a back door. It states that the government has the authority to hack, look for and retain personal information. So in short, no. Google will not allow this. The UK will have to learn to hack their way in just like anyone else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For reference, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigatory_powers_act_backdoors/
I have a copy of the new leglislation, but it is a 300+ page document. It is quite frightening.
You can view it online, it specifically states about ''backdoor access''.
If anyone has ANY information on how this will effect android security and when google will implement this, please share

newsbtc.com/2016/12/11/investigatory-powers-act-decentralized-internet/
:/
So I'm assuming this will either effect the pixel/nexus updates, or the next pixel successor, or even both

This legislation has come into effect from today.
Google, as well as practically all telecoms manufacturers and telecoms service providers are affected.
Cannot really trust the security offered from updates from now on unfortunately.

Good luck enforcing something like this when there is no way to ensure a encryption system with a back door is actually secure.
What is the UK going to do when Google and other software companies say no. Have them stop providing their goods to the UK? Maybe there will be no pixel updates or new phones for the UK market?
How are banks and other financial institutions which risk substantial loss because of an insecure encryption system going to react? No more online banking or financial transactions?

krelvinaz said:
Good luck enforcing something like this when there is no way to ensure a encryption system with a back door is actually secure.
What is the UK going to do when Google and other software companies say no. Have them stop providing their goods to the UK? Maybe there will be no pixel updates or new phones for the UK market?
How are banks and other financial institutions which risk substantial loss because of an insecure encryption system going to react? No more online banking or financial transactions?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It seems like the legislation stipulates and enforces any telecommunications provider/manufacturer to provide a accessible route into devices for something classified as "equipment interference", which in layman terms, is basically legalised hacking.
If a notice is served to the provider/manufacturer, they must comply otherwise it is unlawful. The legislation also stipulates that it is unlawful to declare that a notice has been served, which in essence means that we will never know or have any knowledge of this occurring.
Quite a sinister draconian piece of legislation if you ask me.

I have a hard time believing Google or Apple will just hand them the keys . Apple wouldn't even let American government access. Amazon won't give cops access to a murder they think was recorded on a Amazon echo

FYI the US government is on the same path. We should all be concerned and demand that elected officials work to reverse these trends.

Besides the privacy issue I personally don't have anything I'm worried about. Don't get me wrong, the privacy part of it is major as I value it more than 90% of life so I'm not saying "who cares". I'm also not in Europe so I'm really not worried. That is until the US goes public with it. That being said, unless there is a hardware backdoor implemented, it won't last long. If it's coded in software it'll be found and removed. So unless it's software based and you stay stock unrooted, there's nothing to worry about.
It does kinda seem funny that after this comes around, updates have been pushed with a second European carrier fix update though.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ackdoor-allows-snooping-on-encrypted-messages
"In the UK, the recently passed Investigatory Powers Act allows the government to intercept bulk data of users held by private companies, without suspicion of criminal activity, similar to the activity of the US National Security Agency uncovered by the Snowden revelations. The government also has the power to force companies to “maintain technical capabilities” that allow data collection through hacking and interception, and requires companies to remove “electronic protection” from data. Intentional or not, WhatsApp’s backdoor to the end-to-end encryption could be used in such a way to facilitate government interception.
Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “If companies claim to offer end-to-end encryption, they should come clean if it is found to be compromised – whether through deliberately installed backdoors or security flaws. In the UK, the Investigatory Powers Act means that technical capability notices could be used to compel companies to introduce flaws – which could leave people’s data vulnerable.”

Database Users

welcome