Database Users

Pressure on Tmobile

This shows that the chip issue is bothering more than just consumers. Hopefully this pressure will help us maintain control over our phones.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sour...r-android-becoming-a-political-liability/7588
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App

Ghostcreamy said:
This shows that the chip issue is bothering more than just consumers. Hopefully this pressure will help us maintain control over our phones.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sour...r-android-becoming-a-political-liability/7588
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
*sigh*
What chip issue exactly?

Stick it to Google, T-mobile... The cellphone manufacturers are starting to imprint chips to bypass any OS modifications... I can clearly say "it's only a matter of time until this cheapy little chip is cracked."

At this point it really doesn't matter if its a chip, a bug or bad juju big brother is starting to take notice and that is good for us.

Wow, so why doesn't anyone ever bring up the Droid X? Or this this just mainly a ploy to take aim at T-mobile?
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App

This is indeed very good news for the customer (like us) who like to do more than just accept how the phone comes. Keep up the pressure people! =)

krayshunist said:
*sigh*
What chip issue exactly?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seconded.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App

janus zeal said:
Seconded.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This chip is why we cant have Perma Root. Look for Root thread and you will see what i mean and a much better explanation hehe

Ehh... this article is bull****. It's just some more hype written by another Android user for ZDNet. If you look at the sourced article, it does not mention any impending predicament for Schmidt and barely talks about Google. This just hype... for example:
The ZDnet author writes in his article:
It is now obvious that it’s the latter step Google took with Android and folks in Washington are starting to take notice.
The cited article doesn't mention a political quandary headed by Google. It can be summarized well by the last sentence. And the only relevance to Google and Schmidt in that article is a short blurb referring to another blog post on the same site.
The fundamental question the FCC now needs to answer is not if developers will find a way around the latest blocks, but if companies should be allowed to continue actively blocking users from truly owning and having full control over the mobile devices they buy in the first place.
and
On Tuesday October 5, 2010 the New America Foundation posted a blog highlighting a new “feature” of the T-Mobile's G2 with Google phone (G2).
Following that link takes us to the New American Foundation site which posted the following on Oct 5th (with an update on the 7th):
Unfortunately, the G2 also comes with built-in hardware that restricts what software a device owner might wish to install.
and
Clearly, the included software on T-Mobile's phone overrides a user's rights to run the legal software and applications of their choice. Instead, a microchip on the new T-Mobile Android phone acts just like a virus -- overwriting a user's preferred software and changing preferences and settings to change settings and software to conform to the desires of a third party. Users of the new "T-Mobile G2 with Google" phone should be warned that their device will overwrite their software modifications. We are seeking further clarification as to the legality of this software.
As you can see this is between the FCC, T-Mobile and possibly HTC. I don't foresee Google taking any real interest in this because it can only cost them money. Sure Google has made some noble contributions, but how much can they gain from protecting their interests? Not an awful much in this case. Mobile phone manufacturers and network providers will keep using the Android operating system. And the fact that Google licensed the Android operating system does not readily mean they are entitled to enforce it.
If you are interested in the legality of enforcing a license like the GPL, I highly suggest reading: http://www.jltp.uiuc.edu/archives/kumar.pdf
Here's a blurb that describes the predicament:
Two competing theories attempt to explain why the GPL is
enforceable. The first theory, backed by the GPL’s creator Richard
Stallman, declares that the GPL is a non-contractual license, rather than
a contract. Eben Moglen, general counsel for Stallman’s Free Software
Foundation (“FSF”), has stated that “[l]icenses are not contracts: the
work’s user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not
because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn’t have any right
to act at all except as the license permits.”28 This theory presents
problems, because it does not account for the possibility of the licensor
withdrawing the license to the detriment of the licensee. Draft 2 of GPL
v.3 states that “[a]ll rights granted under this License are granted for the
term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met.”29 However, the draft provides no guidance regarding
what kind of legal remedy is available to a licensee if the licensor
attempts to revoke previously granted rights.
The second theory holds that the GPL is a contract. This theory is
plausible, because traditional software licenses are generally interpreted
as contracts. But such licenses also have cash consideration. Contract
proponents argue that consideration does exist under the GPL. But
ultimately, they are unable to show that there is a meeting of minds
between the licensor and licensee, thus failing the requirements of
contract formation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

funkeee said:
Ehh... this article is bull****. It's just some more hype written by another Android user for ZDNet. If you look at the sourced article, it does not mention any impending predicament for Schmidt and barely talks about Google. This just hype... for example:
The ZDnet author writes in his article:
It is now obvious that it’s the latter step Google took with Android and folks in Washington are starting to take notice.
The cited article doesn't mention a political quandary headed by Google. It can be summarized well by the last sentence. And the only relevance to Google and Schmidt in that article is a short blurb referring to another blog post on the same site.
The fundamental question the FCC now needs to answer is not if developers will find a way around the latest blocks, but if companies should be allowed to continue actively blocking users from truly owning and having full control over the mobile devices they buy in the first place.
and
On Tuesday October 5, 2010 the New America Foundation posted a blog highlighting a new “feature” of the T-Mobile's G2 with Google phone (G2).
Following that link takes us to the New American Foundation site which posted the following on Oct 5th (with an update on the 7th):
Unfortunately, the G2 also comes with built-in hardware that restricts what software a device owner might wish to install.
and
Clearly, the included software on T-Mobile's phone overrides a user's rights to run the legal software and applications of their choice. Instead, a microchip on the new T-Mobile Android phone acts just like a virus -- overwriting a user's preferred software and changing preferences and settings to change settings and software to conform to the desires of a third party. Users of the new "T-Mobile G2 with Google" phone should be warned that their device will overwrite their software modifications. We are seeking further clarification as to the legality of this software.
As you can see this is between the FCC, T-Mobile and possibly HTC. I don't foresee Google taking any real interest in this because it can only cost them money. Sure Google has made some noble contributions, but how much can they gain from protecting their interests? Not an awful much in this case. Mobile phone manufacturers and network providers will keep using the Android operating system. And the fact that Google licensed the Android operating system does not readily mean they are entitled to enforce it.
If you are interested in the legality of enforcing a license like the GPL, I highly suggest reading: http://www.jltp.uiuc.edu/archives/kumar.pdf
Here's a blurb that describes the predicament:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whatever... It's whatever you want it to be... Stop trying to ruin the excitement here...

I think the real issue her is the we own the phone and have the right to install or uninstall any application we want that is not integral to the proper operation of the phone without needing root access. This just isn't a T-mobile issue either, all cell providers do the same thing. I doubt it will change anytime soon without the government getting involved.

naria01 said:
Whatever... It's whatever you want it to be... Stop trying to ruin the excitement here...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can also try thinking for yourself as opposed to accepting everything you read, whether it's my post or the article.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App

just out of curiosity
is it possible that by "rooting" our phones we would then be able to circumvent some of the failsafes or even bypass billing processes that our network providers have in place?
if there is even the slightest hint of a yes then i would say that any network provider would be entitled to take "reasonable" action to protect their investment as im sure that in any contract or terms of use guide the networks have there would be a section saying something similiar, if not more wordy and legal'ish

Regardless of sensationalism or whatever this is good for us.. I just can't believe the responses here or hell in most of the G2 forums. Most of you are like puppies who will lay over just for a corporate tummy rub. WTF! Why are the "this phone rocks root or not!!11!!" people even on a DEVELOPER website? Jesus people you are either with or against the thing that made cyanogenmod a household name....open android.
I can clearly say XDA was not founded on the principal of HEY MY PHONE CAME JUST THE WAY I LIKED IT....AHHH THANKS HTC.
Please get behind the cause people.

funkeee said:
You can also try thinking for yourself as opposed to accepting everything you read, whether it's my post or the article.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let me guess... you voted for obama...

naria01 said:
Let me guess... you voted for obama...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App

naria01 said:
Let me guess... you voted for obama...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WTF...does voting for Obama have to do with this.....some people.
Sent from my DETHFONE (G2)

OP thanks for the link to the info it was interesting to know that more than just consumers are taking notice even if it doesn't go very far.
Mod, please close this thread before its dominated by "truck stop politics." This isn't the place to discuss who voted for who and why or why not it was a good idea.

moodecow said:
just out of curiosity
is it possible that by "rooting" our phones we would then be able to circumvent some of the failsafes or even bypass billing processes that our network providers have in place?
if there is even the slightest hint of a yes then i would say that any network provider would be entitled to take "reasonable" action to protect their investment as im sure that in any contract or terms of use guide the networks have there would be a section saying something similiar, if not more wordy and legal'ish
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
... no. Billing is done on carrier side, not on the phone. In fact, the carrier doesn't even know which phone you're currently using, and they don't really care beyond forcing you to buy certain plans with certain phones.
Snuggl3s said:
This chip is why we cant have Perma Root. Look for Root thread and you will see what i mean and a much better explanation hehe
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you even read the root threads you just referenced? If so, you clearly don't understand what's in them so read the wiki.

I find it odd that the article that the OP linked to mentions T-Mobile's claims of a poorly coded app almost bringing the network down helps they argument for blocking root. The problem is, based on what I can from the TmoNews article on the app, that app had nothing to do with rooting. Any attempt to link that app to root problems for carriers is pure FUD.
Is it too much to ask that T-Mobile just come out and say that rooting and flashing ROMs leads to higher support costs? Then we can at least have an honest debate.

Rooting/Jailbreaking and the Sony vs Gehot case.

Has anyone had any second thoughts about rooting their Streaks because of what happened in the Sony vs. Gehot case. I'm not referring to the settlement. I'm talking about what happened before that. The fact that the judge ordered the ISPs, youtube, google, twitter, paypal to turn over any information they had on anyone who watched or read about the PS3 jailbreak to Sony. So now it seems that you can be look into for the mere act of reading about something that hasn't even been proven to be illegal.

hell no. never even heard of it till now.
Seems pretty stupid on Sony's part if you ask me. Why would I ever want to purchase fron a company like that.
Sent from my Dell Streak using XDA App

Sony's issue is that the ps3 software is a closed ecosystem which he had opened up to anyone, while as I understand it Android is open source in the main.
Shouldn't be a problem.
Sent from my Motorola DynaTAC using XDA Premium App

No. and I believe the court ruling on jailbreaking applies to other devices including android devices. Besides, iirc there wasnt even a verdict in the geohot case. It was settled out of court or whatever.

BlueCrystal said:
No. and I believe the court ruling on jailbreaking applies to other devices including android devices. Besides, iirc there wasnt even a verdict in the geohot case. It was settled out of court or whatever.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The settlement didn't change the fact that the judge ordered twitter, youtube, paypal, google, etc, etc to hand over the personal information of anyone who viewed the website or the video on how to jailbreak the PS3. They all complied. That all happened before the settlement occurred. So now Sony has a list of known "jailbreakers", aided by the government. This sets a dangerous precedent.

I'm trying to find the correlation between ps3 hackers and people who root their phones.
Sent from my Dell Streak using XDA App

Short answer: no.
Really don't imagine Dell give a rat's azz what I do with my Streak. The Streak is chump change compared to their computer sales.
Sent from my Dell Streak using XDA App

There is no correlation since it depends on the manufacturer/developers to persue users
Dell doesnt mind/doesnt care, the streak has a fully unlocked bootloader and you can literally do anything you want on it.
No android phone manufacturer actively persues their users, the most they do are like moto or htc and lock down the bootloaders. Even if you do mess with a locked phone you can always return to the stock rom and have no issues with the manu (unless you brick your phone in the process, then you're at their mercy)
Even sony-erricson (which is a seperate group from sony proper) allows you the option of unlocking the xperia play and doing what you want on it (with the exception that it will void your warrentee)
also even apple doesnt actively seek the dev team, you can jailbreak your phone, just dont expect any support if you break it
This has nothing to do with how open/closed the platform is, it has everything to do with corporate policy
the only real way you can get in serious trouble is by hacking the phone to where you can change your IMEI/IMSI since that's pretty much illegal anywhere you can use a cell phone or by creating/distributing apps that directly attack networks/anything obviously illegal along those lines.

Asus locking bootloader

http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2012/0...sh-over-transformer-primes-locked-bootloader/
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using xda premium

Wrong forum, that is about the new transformer prime, not the original transformer

Yea I know just wanted anyone know who might want to get the prime... also for future products/updates they might release..
sent from epic 4g

Original Transformer also has locked bootloader. Just lucky for most of us the key was leaked.

Nullinvoid said:
Wrong forum, that is about the new transformer prime, not the original transformer
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its very pertinent here.
Sent from my Nexus S using xda premium

However the Prime forums are in a bit of an uproar about it.
As I am opposed to locked/encrypted bootloaders I post this link so we may all let Asus know that we don't want to see any more of encrypted bootloaders.

Tweeted as requested! Seems prime has more enthusiasts than we do right now.
Sent from my Nexus S using xda premium

God I really hate these internet mediastorm campaigns full of spotty teenagers complaining about crap like this and starting Facebook petitions and all to try and change corporate decisions. They flood blogs and news sites will their crap.
Go buy an Xoom if it really bothers you that much.
Comments like this really are embarrassing (not for Asus, but the whole human race).
Jermiah Fortier
Unlock this Bootloader on the prime you scumbags.
I bought this device and I demand I be allowed to use it. I will be advising everyone that I know is in the market for a tablet to avoid Asus until something is done.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Someone want to tell him he can already USE it..... He makes it sound like a power-on password. If anything unlocking the bootloader will REDUCE functionality, as it would almost certainly mean you would no longer have a secure device that could rent content, any unlocking would remove DRM keys.
Both my devices are rooted with unlocked bootloaders, however I don't DEMAND it, I research the products and buy the ones that allow it (or have leaked keys). Had the Asus not had the bootloader keys leaked, I would have bought something else (Xoom for eample). Let market forces dictate, not dumb Facebook and mediastorm bullcrap.

Got to love our first world problems. I'd much rather worry about a locked bootloader digital device then where im going to get my next meal or whether we have fresh water for the children . Send all these whining kids to south Africa or the Philippines, mayybe have them digging fighting holes in Afghanistan or building ffp 's... that will add some perspective to their "PROBLEMS"
Carry on
Sent from my SGH-I997 using XDA App

theraffman said:
Got to love our first world problems. I'd much rather worry about a locked bootloader digital device then where im going to get my next meal or whether we have fresh water for the children . Send all these whining kids to south Africa or the Philippines, mayybe have them digging fighting holes in Afghanistan or building ffp 's... that will add some perspective to their "PROBLEMS"
Carry on
Sent from my SGH-I997 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Spot on. My sentiments exactly. It's interesting this form of internet crybaby attitude seems to be almost entirely American of origin.

CrazyPeter said:
Spot on. My sentiments exactly. It's interesting this form of internet crybaby attitude seems to be almost entirely American of origin.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed, methinks mommy and daddy didnt ever tell these idiots 'no'.
However, whilst i dont really appreciate people whingeining so much about this, no doubt the prime will get its leaked bootloader key sometime soon. Patience it seems is fast becoming a uncommon virtue.
The thing that bugs me about this whole bootloader thing is that pure Android devices like the Nexus range dont have this and google have said they dont approve of it but cant do anything about what other manufacturers do in this regard.

Some of the comments are a bit stupid and obviously by people who dont even know what they are talking about .
Regardless now anyway as Asus have announced they will provide an unlocking tool.
This is also good for TF101 users on SBKv2 as im damn sure they will also allow unlocking this too.
Great result i think !!

This is from engadget
"Lastly, ASUS explains that the locked bootloader is essential for access to content from Google's video market thanks to DRM restrictions, but it promises an unlock utility is in the work for those who want it."
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/03/ice-cream-sandwich-coming-to-the-transformer-prime-january-12th/

mllk said:
This is from engadget
"Lastly, ASUS explains that the locked bootloader is essential for access to content from Google's video market thanks to DRM restrictions, but it promises an unlock utility is in the work for those who want it."
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/03/ice-cream-sandwich-coming-to-the-transformer-prime-january-12th/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is more to the story than what was published here. It appears that along with the unlocked bootloader, will come the inability to use some DRM protected audio and video content. It will be a trade off.

Rumbleweed said:
There is more to the story than what was published here. It appears that along with the unlocked bootloader, will come the inability to use some DRM protected audio and video content. It will be a trade off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And the same internet crybabies will be launching a campaign to try and shame Asus into allowing them to have a unlocked bootloader AND be able to rip the DRM from video rentals, they will also force them to make the next Asus Transformer 3 also have an inbuilt coffee maker and toenail clipping facility.
I hate how the internet and social media gives a vocal minority an overinflated ego that allows them to blackmail companies to conform to their whims.

Well, you can call me crybaby, but I'm happy with the result of this campaign. You seem to be crying much more that all of us so called "crybabies" now in this thread. If you don't approve - no need to call people names. And if we all allow in silence for devices to be more and more locked one day we wouldn't have a choice to buy sth else because all of them would be locked.

Magnesus said:
Original Transformer also has locked bootloader. Just lucky for most of us the key was leaked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry for OT, but when was the key leaked? I am new to the Tf101 and didn't here a Word about that. Could you post a link to confirm that, or sth. like that?

Magnesus said:
Well, you can call me crybaby, but I'm happy with the result of this campaign. You seem to be crying much more that all of us so called "crybabies" now in this thread. If you don't approve - no need to call people names. And if we all allow in silence for devices to be more and more locked one day we wouldn't have a choice to buy sth else because all of them would be locked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, but I have not felt the need to engineer a social media ****storm like you lot have arranged, where a vocal minority are pretending to be MUCH louder than they actually are.
If you really dislike locked bootloaders, then Tegra2 and Tegra3 platforms are not for you, as they are ALL locked using the same 128bit AES key, as it's part of the NVidia chipset.
The only tablet I am aware of that uses Tegra2 that allows unlocking is the Xoom, if you feel that strongly, don't buy Asus, but Xoom instead.

im sorry but im sure the group of people who want their devices unlocked is not a small percentage from the research ive done on android a good half of android owners are likely rooted.
the people who dont root are usually, not always but usually the people who dont know how or what it is. for your average joe user a locked bootloader means nothing now at least,(if we allow manufacturers to continue to take administrator rights away from the owner the owner will have no control what runs or doesnt run on their device). most users who are technically knowledged in computers are against locked bootloaders even if they dnt feel rooting is neccessary with asus' device(they did a good job at adding the features that were lacking due to a locked device)
ANYONE who sticks up for locked bootloaders on any computer or personal device doesnt have a clue...manufacturers are taking away your rights to do whatever you want with your device. there has already been federal judges state that changing software on a device should not void a warranty. if the tools that should be available are available then software problems can be fixed by the consumer but the manufacturer would lose money from people that would just maintain and repair their devices themselves. im sorry but it is VERY VERYimprobable that software of anykind can damage hardware. i dont think it can at all unless the tools to completely wipe a device and reload its software are non existent.
these manufacturers are only concerned with money not the customers at all. these decisions are made with greed as the driving factor.
and obviously the community that wants the rights to their devices must not be small or asud would have paid no attention....and htc who is now unlocking their devices heard that communities requests as well.
and very simple with a locked bootloader the manufacturer can put any tracking, or spyware on the device they want and the users wouldnt even know. that alone is enough to say no....i do agree with those who say if you want an unlocked device the buy a different tablet and i agree, and i think if that happened then companies like asus sales would definetly fall and companies would see and react to it. i believe this is one way to get manufacturers to listen to the community.
but when i bought my transformer i was told by commercials the salesman, and the android specifications and just the fact its open source, that my device was open sourced and developer freindly. an open source software that run on a locked device is just an oxymoron i guess that the word anyway.
i do feel honestly i was mislead to a degree and in the future i will not purchase a device until i confirm i get full administratir rights to my device. and i hope all other android users do the same..i absolutely love my asus and i would hate to have to make my choice on rights to do what i want with my device rather than the specs and quality of the device.
any device that has files i cant see change or remove is not truly my device its whoever has controll of it letting me use what they deem is ok.
and the low blow to americans was uncalled for but id have to say we are raised from birth believing we have the right to freedom and that includes our devices, and i really dontr think thats wrong what i do believe is wrong is anyone who accepts their freedoms being taken from them and then stcking up for the one who is taking those freedoms away. talk about silly
i really have no intentions of upsetting anyone with this and it is a general statement not directed to anyone other than asus really, im just stating my opinion and i believe thats another right we have. no one has to agree with me and i dont expect them to EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO AN OPINION. without being attacked for it

Sure enough Asus came through with the requests!

since kindle fire phone is very similiar...

.... you think this will improve our tablets (thor and apollo) chances of getting more dev time. Specifically unlocking the bootloader. The kindle fire phone has pretty much the same hardware as our tablets so hopefully most tools dev'd for the phone can be ported our way and visa versa. heres to crossing our fingers :fingers-crossed:

gutts10 said:
.... you think this will improve our tablets (thor and apollo) chances of getting more dev time. Specifically unlocking the bootloader. The kindle fire phone has pretty much the same hardware as our tablets so hopefully most tools dev'd for the phone can be ported our way and visa versa. heres to crossing our fingers :fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The bootloader on this device has already been unlocked. The devs just have not decided to release it. Hopefully that will change very soon and we can really make this tablet hum.

conan1600 said:
The bootloader on this device has already been unlocked. The devs just have not decided to release it. Hopefully that will change very soon and we can really make this tablet hum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
seriously??? when did this happen?? and why would they not release it?

gutts10 said:
seriously??? when did this happen?? and why would they not release it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2760912&page=7 last page of this thread

conan1600 said:
I mean, with a bootloader unlock and cm or asop or pretty much any custom Rom I feel like this could potentially be the best tablet I've ever owned.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed 100%. best device on the market right now in terms of hardware. lets get this aosp up and running! im gonna refrain from unlocking my tablet till there's a stable rom out. hopefully that doesnt take too long.

gutts10 said:
agreed 100%. best device on the market right now in terms of hardware. lets get this aosp up and running! im gonna refrain from unlocking my tablet till there's a stable rom out. hopefully that doesnt take too long.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd do anything to get off that terrible thing they call FireOS right away.

EncryptedCurse said:
I'd do anything to get off that terrible thing they call FireOS right away.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, I hate it. It not something I want to get used to. Before I bought this kindle, I didn't plan on doing any kind of rooting or flashing of ROMs....until I played around with it.

EncryptedCurse said:
I'd do anything to get off that terrible thing they call FireOS right away.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me too. But for now, we can only burn and wither in the FireOS fireplace. I can't wait to get Play Store, XPOSED, and Safestrap on this machine. I dream of AOSP.

Actually, if it were a phone, it would already be available to the general public.
What some of you may not understand is that the DMCA & more specifically, the LOC exceptions specifically INCLUDE cell phones. Unfortunately, they also very specifically EXCLUDED tablets from the exception. This makes it a crime to unlock the bootloaders on tablet devices. It can actually be pretty serious & aside from any damages that could be potentially awarded via civil action, the fines on the criminal side can be as much as $500,000.00 USD & can also include up to two years imprisonment.
While it likely wouldn't happen, if you happened to do something else that either the government or a manufacturer didn't like, that looms over your head.
The saddest part of this is that there was a "we the people" petition for both cell phones & tablets. The cell phone one acquired the number of signatures required to elicit a White House response, while the tablet petition expired well short of reaching the required number. Until the laws are changed by the legislation, or the new exceptions are released to include tablets, IN 2018, there is very little that can be done.

GSLEON3 said:
Actually, if it were a phone, it would already be available to the general public.
What some of you may not understand is that the DMCA & more specifically, the LOC exceptions specifically INCLUDE cell phones. Unfortunately, they also very specifically EXCLUDED tablets from the exception. This makes it a crime to unlock the bootloaders on tablet devices. It can actually be pretty serious & aside from any damages that could be potentially awarded via civil action, the fines on the criminal side can be as much as $500,000.00 USD & can also include up to two years imprisonment.
While it likely wouldn't happen, if you happened to do something else that either the government or a manufacturer didn't like, that looms over your head.
The saddest part of this is that there was a "we the people" petition for both cell phones & tablets. The cell phone one acquired the number of signatures required to elicit a White House response, while the tablet petition expired well short of reaching the required number. Until the laws are changed by the legislation, or the new exceptions are released to include tablets, IN 2018, there is very little that can be done.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting, I didn't know that. I just did some interesting reading. So I'm assuming this is the reason the bootloader unlock hasn't been released yet. Does this mean it won't ever be released, or is there a way around it?

S_transform said:
Interesting, I didn't know that. I just did some interesting reading. So I'm assuming this is the reason the bootloader unlock hasn't been released yet. Does this mean it won't ever be released, or is there a way around it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd think it's more so of a lacking community. From what I've seen, there's a very limited amount of competent developers capable of even attempting to unlock the bootloader.

Umm From what I understand it is already done.. For the tablets anyway. It just hasn't been released but I am confused on what was said in an earlier [email protected] GSLEON3 If they were going to sue anybody why wasn't anybody's sued when they cracked the HD or the Nook color?

GSLEON3 said:
Actually, if it were a phone, it would already be available to the general public.
What some of you may not understand is that the DMCA & more specifically, the LOC exceptions specifically INCLUDE cell phones. Unfortunately, they also very specifically EXCLUDED tablets from the exception. This makes it a crime to unlock the bootloaders on tablet devices. It can actually be pretty serious & aside from any damages that could be potentially awarded via civil action, the fines on the criminal side can be as much as $500,000.00 USD & can also include up to two years imprisonment.
While it likely wouldn't happen, if you happened to do something else that either the government or a manufacturer didn't like, that looms over your head.
The saddest part of this is that there was a "we the people" petition for both cell phones & tablets. The cell phone one acquired the number of signatures required to elicit a White House response, while the tablet petition expired well short of reaching the required number. Until the laws are changed by the legislation, or the new exceptions are released to include tablets, IN 2018, there is very little that can be done.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...Because nothing has ever been put on the internet anonymously before

GSLEON3 said:
Actually, if it were a phone, it would already be available to the general public.
What some of you may not understand is that the DMCA & more specifically, the LOC exceptions specifically INCLUDE cell phones. Unfortunately, they also very specifically EXCLUDED tablets from the exception. This makes it a crime to unlock the bootloaders on tablet devices. It can actually be pretty serious & aside from any damages that could be potentially awarded via civil action, the fines on the criminal side can be as much as $500,000.00 USD & can also include up to two years imprisonment.
While it likely wouldn't happen, if you happened to do something else that either the government or a manufacturer didn't like, that looms over your head.
The saddest part of this is that there was a "we the people" petition for both cell phones & tablets. The cell phone one acquired the number of signatures required to elicit a White House response, while the tablet petition expired well short of reaching the required number. Until the laws are changed by the legislation, or the new exceptions are released to include tablets, IN 2018, there is very little that can be done.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually this info is very erroneous. There was no tablet exclusion period. Rather there was no tablet inclusion as they could not come to terms with a suitable definition of what makes a tablet. This battle has already and is still being fought. But your interpretation of the newly founded ruling is in error. Also you will need to understand your terms better. Carrier unlocking a cell phone without the carriers permission is still a crime until such time as the ruling is re visited, this ruling will be upheld for 3 years. Bootloader unlocking, root, and Roms are very much still legal, and actually protected under these new rules for cell phones. There is no law at all in the DMCA ruling for Tablets.
No case has come before courts pending bootloader unlocking on tablets and the law is a grey area as there was no inclusion NOR exclusion made by the DMCA. The DMCA also made it quite clear that they want the American people to be free to customize their phone as they see fit with bootloader unlocks and roms. This ruling also HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on other countries so any unlock coming from any other country is not subject to prosecution even on the carrier unlock for the releasing developer. Simply put, for developers in America, tablets are not specifically protected under the law to be bootloader unlocked, rooted etc. As such a potential law suit could be brought against a developer however there is no legal precedent for a case of that nature. Therefore tablets are still in the same legal limbo that they have ALWAYS been in while phones are protected.
The outcome of a trial on a case such as this would imo be flimsy at best and could prove deadly to the AOSP however, therefore serving to work against Androids best interests. The fines you quoted do in fact go up to 500,000.00 however they are specifically for carrier unlocking NOT bootloader unlocking as no law pertains to it except that it is legal to perform that action on cell phones. Many people and tech blogs have made similarly mistaken conclusions as you have but they as far as I have seen did not make the mistake on fines. Here is an example of one tech who gets it mostly right. http://rescueroot.com/android/is-rooting-android-phones-and-tablets-legal/ . Law is an interesting thing and all laws are designed to be complex but in this case there is simply NO LAW in the DMCA ruling pertaining to tablets.
This ABC article has a pdf with the actual DMCA ruling as well as a write up. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/now-illegal-unlock-cellphone/story?id=18319518

EncryptedCurse said:
I'd think it's more so of a lacking community. From what I've seen, there's a very limited amount of competent developers capable of even attempting to unlock the bootloader.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its already been cracked. they have been quoted as saying that they are having trouble implementing it. what that means? i dont know but it could mean they are having trouble monetizing it ($25 per crack is what i heard) or they are having trouble with the actual code of the crack. either way, the crack is official as per some people on these boards that have more cred than me.

conan1600 said:
Actually this info is very erroneous. There was no tablet exclusion period. Rather there was no tablet inclusion as they could not come to terms with a suitable definition of what makes a tablet. This battle has already and is still being fought. But your interpretation of the newly founded ruling is in error. Also you will need to understand your terms better. Carrier unlocking a cell phone without the carriers permission is still a crime until such time as the ruling is re visited, this ruling will be upheld for 3 years. Bootloader unlocking, root, and Roms are very much still legal, and actually protected under these new rules for cell phones. There is no law at all in the DMCA ruling for Tablets.
No case has come before courts pending bootloader unlocking on tablets and the law is a grey area as there was no inclusion NOR exclusion made by the DMCA. The DMCA also made it quite clear that they want the American people to be free to customize their phone as they see fit with bootloader unlocks and roms. This ruling also HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on other countries so any unlock coming from any other country is not subject to prosecution even on the carrier unlock for the releasing developer. Simply put, for developers in America, tablets are not specifically protected under the law to be bootloader unlocked, rooted etc. As such a potential law suit could be brought against a developer however there is no legal precedent for a case of that nature. Therefore tablets are still in the same legal limbo that they have ALWAYS been in while phones are protected.
The outcome of a trial on a case such as this would imo be flimsy at best and could prove deadly to the AOSP however, therefore serving to work against Androids best interests. The fines you quoted do in fact go up to 500,000.00 however they are specifically for carrier unlocking NOT bootloader unlocking as no law pertains to it except that it is legal to perform that action on cell phones. Many people and tech blogs have made similarly mistaken conclusions as you have but they as far as I have seen did not make the mistake on fines. Here is an example of one tech who gets it mostly right. http://rescueroot.com/android/is-rooting-android-phones-and-tablets-legal/ . Law is an interesting thing and all laws are designed to be complex but in this case there is simply NO LAW in the DMCA ruling pertaining to tablets.
This ABC article has a pdf with the actual DMCA ruling as well as a write up. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/now-illegal-unlock-cellphone/story?id=18319518
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whatever, I NEVER said there was a tablet exclusion. What I said was tablet were very specifiaclly EXCLUDED, which they were because they found the term "tablet" to be too open to interpretation & too widely encompassing.
There are still other issues that can come into play in regards to unlocking bootloaders, such as modifying other partitions or factors that play into operating a device with an invalid FCC grant (as simple as enabling frequencies not covered under the initial grant, or changing power levels), which is indeed a criminal offense, maybe not related to the DMCA (the act, not the group), but I'm still not sure that is entirely the case, since everything I have read essentially excludes anything not specifically addressed by the exemptions, although I certainly haven't read the entire text of the laws as my schedule hasn't permitted it & frankly, if I have the time to read, I highly doubt it will be legal text.
Regardless, you also have laws regarding bypassing digital locks (untested) & even the exemptions that do apply, they only apply to "where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability". You still have laws & treaties requiring possible action for possible circumvention of DRM (a big thing for a media distribution giant like Amazon), not to mention protection of IP & competitive secrets that may be protected by said digital locks. As many of these laws have never been tested in court, the only real opinion on the matter (a judge or justice in the US), has never been issued. Either way, I was just passing along the info that one of the devs that successfully unlocked the bootloader shared. Really, for me, it matters not anymore.
As to the 4 years, I was probably mistaken (something some people have no problem admitting), but I was under the impression it is revisited every three years, but not implemented until the following year.

GSLEON3 said:
Whatever, I NEVER said there was a tablet exclusion. What I said was tablet were very specifiaclly EXCLUDED, which they were because they found the term "tablet" to be too open to interpretation & too widely encompassing.
There are still other issues that can come into play in regards to unlocking bootloaders, such as modifying other partitions or factors that play into operating a device with an invalid FCC grant (as simple as enabling frequencies not covered under the initial grant, or changing power levels), which is indeed a criminal offense, maybe not related to the DMCA (the act, not the group), but I'm still not sure that is entirely the case, since everything I have read essentially excludes anything not specifically addressed by the exemptions, although I certainly haven't read the entire text of the laws as my schedule hasn't permitted it & frankly, if I have the time to read, I highly doubt it will be legal text.
Regardless, you also have laws regarding bypassing digital locks (untested) & even the exemptions that do apply, they only apply to "where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability". You still have laws & treaties requiring possible action for possible circumvention of DRM (a big thing for a media distribution giant like Amazon), not to mention protection of IP & competitive secrets that may be protected by said digital locks. As many of these laws have never been tested in court, the only real opinion on the matter (a judge or justice in the US), has never been issued. Either way, I was just passing along the info that one of the devs that successfully unlocked the bootloader shared. Really, for me, it matters not anymore.
As to the 4 years, I was probably mistaken (something some people have no problem admitting), but I was under the impression it is revisited every three years, but not implemented until the following year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So then I'm assuming this is affected by the bill passed literally today that reads:
"by adding at the end the following: ``It shall not be a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with a work
protected under this title if the purpose of such circumvention is to engage in a use that is not an infringement of copyright under this title.''
As far as I know this does not apply solely to phones, and would apply to tablets and all electronics if I'm reading it correctly. For a link to the bill and the code of law:
bill:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
the current code:
https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1892/text

GSLEON3 said:
Whatever, I NEVER said there was a tablet exclusion. What I said was tablet were very specifiaclly EXCLUDED, which they were because they found the term "tablet" to be too open to interpretation & too widely encompassing.
There are still other issues that can come into play in regards to unlocking bootloaders, such as modifying other partitions or factors that play into operating a device with an invalid FCC grant (as simple as enabling frequencies not covered under the initial grant, or changing power levels), which is indeed a criminal offense, maybe not related to the DMCA (the act, not the group), but I'm still not sure that is entirely the case, since everything I have read essentially excludes anything not specifically addressed by the exemptions, although I certainly haven't read the entire text of the laws as my schedule hasn't permitted it & frankly, if I have the time to read, I highly doubt it will be legal text.
Regardless, you also have laws regarding bypassing digital locks (untested) & even the exemptions that do apply, they only apply to "where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability". You still have laws & treaties requiring possible action for possible circumvention of DRM (a big thing for a media distribution giant like Amazon), not to mention protection of IP & competitive secrets that may be protected by said digital locks. As many of these laws have never been tested in court, the only real opinion on the matter (a judge or justice in the US), has never been issued. Either way, I was just passing along the info that one of the devs that successfully unlocked the bootloader shared. Really, for me, it matters not anymore.
As to the 4 years, I was probably mistaken (something some people have no problem admitting), but I was under the impression it is revisited every three years, but not implemented until the following year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh but you DID SAY. Furthermore to anyone who has an ounce of brain power everthing you just said in your sad attempt at face saving is garbage. I wont bother pointing out each completely ignorant thing as the level of incompetence is to high for me to waste further time educating you.

conan1600 said:
Oh but you DID SAY. Furthermore to anyone who has an ounce of brain power everthing you just said in your sad attempt at face saving is garbage. I wont bother pointing out each completely ignorant thing as the level of incompetence is to high for me to waste further time educating you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whatever, go read the law. I know exactly what I said. Why don't you go find someway of being productive instead of just trolling the forum?

GSLEON3 said:
Whatever, go read the law. I know exactly what I said. Why don't you go find someway of being productive instead of just trolling the forum?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When or if I decided to troll you I assure you there will be no doubt. In this case im merely correcting you. If in my educated corrections of your blather, I make you look stupid, or feel like a little boy getting a spanking from his daddy which makes you feel sad and angry then that is an unintended but wholly welcomed consequence that I can live with. Buddy, you dont want to quip with me, you're not nearly on the same level.

Any similar concern with Essential

?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/06/huaweis-229-smartphone-us-government-says-dont-buy-it.html
Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

We're deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don't share our values to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications networks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really. This doesn't sound like something that would apply to Essential.
Sent from my Essential PH-1 using Tapatalk

Essential isn't a Chinese based company that's the issue with Huawei

cfclay said:
?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/06/huaweis-229-smartphone-us-government-says-dont-buy-it.html
Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Essential is a US company with US development.
They manufacture with partners no different than Apple.
This is only an issue for companies that are China based with executives with ties to the Chinese military.
Non-issue for Essential.

Not to hijack the thread but...
A friend asked me where is my device made.
So I can tell them US company, US developed, made in China?
Same as apple?

convolution said:
Not to hijack the thread but...
A friend asked me where is my device made.
So I can tell them US company, US developed, made in China?
Same as apple?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes.

This is just more nonsense from the most inept government in US history. To my knowledge the only two Chinese phone manufacturers ever caught putting spyware on phones sold in the US are One Plus and Blu. Huawei is not a new brand and they were never considered a risk before Trump. His administration has also offered literally not a single scrap of evidence that there is any risk in owning a Huawei phone. They are relying entirely on xenophobia instead of evidence.
Also keep in mind that the Republicans who are claiming Chinese phones are a grave security risk are at the same time trying to protect a president that used hackers linked to the Russian government to get elected.
This is just another distraction aimed at a spectacularly stupid electorate.