Related
I got this from another thread on XDA, if it needs to go to the Q&A section, please move it.
What I find interesting, is the BOLD section.
This "explanation" has to do with the Samsung Galaxy S series, but, could also be viable to all android phones.
Now, never let it be said I'm defending at&t in ANY way, but perhaps some of the lag on updates, could be this.
If the manufacturer is "selling" an android update to a carrier, wouldn't that be in violation of the open source agreement?
To explain the political situation, first, a primer on how phone firmware upgrades work for carriers. When a carrier decides to sell a phone, a contract is usually written between the phone manufacturer and the carrier. In this contract, the cost of updates (to the carrier) is usually outlined. Updates are usually broken into several types: critical updates, maintenance updates, and feature updates. Critical updates are those that resolve a critical bug in the phone, such as the phone overheating. Maintenance updates involve routine updates to resolve bugs and other issues reported by the carrier. Finally, feature updates add some new feature in software that wasn’t present before. Critical updates are usually free, maintenance updates have some maintenance fee associated with them, and feature updates are usually costly. In the past, most phone updates would mainly consist of critical and maintenance updates. Carriers almost never want to incur the cost of a feature update because it is of little benefit to them, adds little to the device, and involves a lot of testing on the carrier end. Android has changed the playing field, however – since the Android Open Source Project is constantly being updated, and that information being made widely available to the public, there is pressure for the phone to be constantly updated with the latest version of Android. With most manufacturers, such as HTC, Motorola, etc. This is fine and considered a maintenance upgrade. Samsung, however, considers it a feature update, and requires carriers to pay a per device update fee for each incremental Android update.
Now, here’s where the politics come in: most U.S. carriers aren’t very happy with Samsung’s decision to charge for Android updates as feature updates, especially since they are essentially charging for the Android Open Source Project’s efforts, and the effort on Samsung’s end is rather minimal. As a result of perhaps, corporate collusion, all U.S. carriers have decided to refuse to pay for the Android 2.2 update, in hopes that the devaluation of the Galaxy S line will cause Samsung to drop their fees and give the update to the carriers. The situation has panned out differently in other parts of the world, but this is the situation in the United States.
Some of you might have noticed Verion’s Fascinate updated, but without 2.2 : This is a result of a maintenance agreement Samsung must honor combined with Verizon’s unwillingness to pay the update fees. In short, Android 2.2 is on hold for Galaxy S phones until the U.S. carriers and Samsung reach a consensus.
Some might wonder why I didn’t deliver this over a more legitimate news channel – the short answer: I don’t want to lose my job. I do, however, appreciate transparency, which is why I’m here.
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.
This was the official link to purchase the developer edition, gone??
http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SM-N910VMKEVZW
Yeah it has been down for about a week or so. Looks like the end for them new from Samsung. Shame because I checked the stock on them the day before it was pulled and they still had over 80 of them.
Note Edge DevEd is gone too.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Just when I finally decide to buy the developer edition it disappears from their site. It's getting harder and harder to find newer devices on Verizon that can be rooted and has external storage/removable battery.
Are they going to offer a Note 5 DE?
Get a unlocked phone off of tmobile and you can have removable back battery and sd card and you can put a verizon chip and root.
Sent from my SM-N910V using XDA Free mobile app
Confirmed by Samsung - no more developer note 4's for sale. off the website about a week ago.
good news though. there will be Galaxy S6 Developer Editions, this year, and there will be a Note 5 developer edition (next year)
rob
anticloud said:
Confirmed by Samsung - no more developer note 4's for sale. off the website about a week ago.
good news though. there will be Galaxy S6 Developer Editions, this year, and there will be a Note 5 developer edition (next year)
rob
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately, a non replaceable battery is a deal breaker for me.[emoji20]
Extra Virgin said:
Unfortunately, a non replaceable battery is a deal breaker for me.[emoji20]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was thinking the same thing. Especially if they go with an even smaller battery then what the N4 has, like rumors state.
I haven't been using the spare battery for mine. Just to see if it would be a total inconvenience or not. Hasn't really been at all. Though they never decide to die until it is a major inconvenience haha.
Well, I have to get my Note 4 reflashed back to developer. It's being sent to texas on tuesday. I wasn't thinking, and duked my device with the latest update from Samsung / Verizon. not a good idea, stuck in retail land. I am also planning to get a new screen put in as the one I have has some severe burn-in.
btw - if you are near contract's end, consider this (I am). Don't opt to renew your plan for a new two year agreement just to get a new phone. Verizon, if your plan is expired, will drop your rate 24.99 to keep you. either keep your existing phone, or, pay full retail for your next one.
I know, if you buy a Note 5 (or S6) and want gob loads of memory you pay big bucks. You could also purchase a S5 Developer off of Samsung's site for 599.00 and get the luxury of a new phone plus developer, plus removable battery, plus additional storage.
just a few thoughts your way.
There's this too. Verizon Will Drop Phone Contracts, End Discounted Phones
Yup. No more contracts or contract pricing as of this coming Tuesday. Only options for phone purchase from VZW will be EDGE or full price. If you want a subsidized phone price point, get to the store tomorrow (although it doesn't seem like ANYONE wants more contract... lol)
And, the retail note 4, discontinued...
Sadly the development has never been great for the DE. Lack of root for the retail version has killed an otherwise amazing phone for tinkerers and Nandroiders.
If I am wrong let me know and I'll try to get one used... but until then I stick with my extremely versatile note 2!
Note 5 is a no go for 2 simple reasons: SD and fixed battery.
Samsung Will Feel It.
Telemachus said:
Sadly the development has never been great for the DE. Lack of root for the retail version has killed an otherwise amazing phone for tinkerers and Nandroiders.
If I am wrong let me know and I'll try to get one used... but until then I stick with my extremely versatile note 2!
Note 5 is a no go for 2 simple reasons: SD and fixed battery.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, Note 5 looks great, but from a distance...
And that's why I picked up a 2nd Note 4, found one, at a Best Buy, who states their inventories are depleting and they are discontinued in their systems. So, as soon as they are all sold out, no more. I had to run to a store far away from my home to get a new one. Yup, it's retail, but of course has the two main features people want. And I'm holding on to it for right now, not sure what I'll do with it.
Samsung most definitely does not have em, and whatever Verizon has they REFUSE to sell one at full price walking out of the store with them - poop-heads
================================================================================================================
But Samsung will feel it, for sure - Hmmm, apple-wanna-bees, maybe we'll call them "Sample", yup, we tried it, doesn't taste so good anymore...
================================================================================================================
On a final note, and what might be regarded by most of you as a "Good luck with that.." attempt - this, is the reason I am named "Anti-Cloud"
I would like to start a petition, in which we, the users of phones, regain 100% control if it's use, who has access to it, what's on it, and with full administrative access rights. I would like that to see the petition be forged into a bill and work it's way up to Washington and become law: it basically puts the business of communication devices on a simple one-to-one basis, a simple business model - which in the end, if a person pays for phone service to make calls, send texts, run apps, browse web etc, that the business relationship is solely between "you" and the carrier - meaning you pay for the service and the carrier can only conduct business scoped to making phone calls sending receiving data / text - no collection of whereabouts, providing location services (which is BS anyway), nor using the phone by any means to sell more services - a simple contract more or less, that all other business conducted, whether the user knows about it or not, is prohibited by law - the phone is a phone, it is not a platform for a carrier / 3rd parties to conduct further business (or the government for that matter).
History / Background - A purchased computer, by any of us, is for the most part, an honest transaction - meaning once we purchase that computer, which may have an operating system / software on it, it is free to do with what we want. We, the user, can decide to employ administrative access to that PC, even go as far as completely remove an operating system. Note, not sure about apple, but with Microsoft, although a bit harder to do with Windows 8/10 etc, the user can still remove virtually anything they don't want in that operating system let alone they can fully preserve administrative access even in the midst of an update of operating system / software...
Phones, are not that way today. The phone's calling / data / text service is a basic service, yet there are many hands / fingers / services nested with a phone as it leaves the confines of the carrier, with the intent to solicit, collect, and control the business conducted of (on) that device - I want an end to it.
You realize that when you walk out of a carrier with your new phone it is not just a phone you can make calls with, send texts, browse the web - using Samsung / Verizon as a base example: It has Verizon, Samsung, Google, and the Government's fingers into it. The device is a platform to do "further" business with, on top of which we, the user, do not have full administrative rights to.
1. I seek to defund the business models (fingers), i.e. amputate - 3rd parties abilities to do ANY business (collect data, or sell) on devices that does not have to do with making phone calls, sending texts, using data (sending / receiving data between the carrier's towers and the device - the raw service, what you pay for)
2. Give the user FULL unadulterated administrative rights to the device with ability to remove ANY / ALL components / software / drivers - and that no non-essential-software shall be "baked-in" to the point that if removed the device becomes in-operable - i.e. NFL football, google maps. The device's ability to make calls, send texts, consume data must be independent of ALL other applications. Essentially, there would be no need for rooting / jail breaking as the phone's will come that way.
3. Location services can be disabled / removed and are completely free / untethered from the hardware GPS and or the phone's ability to operate - a consumer can, at will, have the ability to remove ALL location features even up to the point of removing drivers which employ the hardware GPS - if they so choose. And, a carrier / 3rd party cannot make the claim of greater accuracy (as that is a lie, complete lie) - using the hardware GPS is by far the most accurate and ALL software models at a minimum should be required to have the ability employ the hardware GPS only with no transmission of location datum to a 3rd party / carrier without the expressed consent of the user / knowledge there of.
4. Device manufactures and carriers MUST give the user a complete freedom from cloud service and or provide an equal means of storing / transmitting user's private data without the intervention / knowledge of a 3rd party provider / carrier - the user must have the choice as to whether to use the cloud or not. No carrier / manufacturer can put a device in service which forces the consumer to use cloud services. and the carrier / 3rd party provider MUST allow the user to move data off / on to the device in a sealed vacuum of privacy.
5. Operating System Providers MUST provide an operating system in which the user can have FULL administrative access to do all the above while maintaining a secure model - meaning carriers / manufactures cannot debilitate a secure service or claim the device is insecure if administrative access is gained by the local user. Secure models must be independent of administrative access - just like a PC!! It is an excuse, 100%, if a provider / carrier insists that security has been compromised if administrative access is gained.
This is a start -
Now, having said that. in a reasonable fashion, a carrier / 3rd party should have the ability to deem a device secure (or not) by virtue of a minimum set of requirements that deem the device safe to transact financial / secure private business - i.e. the user could remove components that defund a device's security model making it vulnerable for attack etc. carriers and 3rd party providers in order to maintain a secure model should be allowed to prevent an application / certain services from transacting if the device is not compliant. We see this in an application like Soft-Card etc. although I contend that a user gaining root access does not constitute a breach in security - if it does, it is because the operating system (or software) is weak - see #5, and providers must ensure that they can achieve a secure platform with administrative access.
any takers?
Ummmm...
Good luck with that!
lexbian said:
Yup. No more contracts or contract pricing as of this coming Tuesday. Only options for phone purchase from VZW will be EDGE or full price. If you want a subsidized phone price point, get to the store tomorrow (although it doesn't seem like ANYONE wants more contract... lol)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to clarify, from what I've been reading if you are on a VZW legacy plan with a 2 year contract you can stick with it and get contract upgrades like normal going forward. I have not seen anything official from VZW on this, but that's the word on the street and I really hope it proves to be true. I still have unlimited data on 4 of my 5 family plan lines and if they steal the contract upgrade subsidies from me I'll be f*#king pissed since it's a value of around $20/month per line.
On a side note I'm looking for a DE Note 4. If anyone has any leads let me know. Those things are like leprechauns these days.
If someone here with a DE wants to move to a different phone I have a contract upgrade available with Verizon so I can trade you any new phone for a DE Note 4.
vmod32 said:
Just to clarify, from what I've been reading if you are on a VZW legacy plan with a 2 year contract you can stick with it and get contract upgrades like normal going forward. I have not seen anything official from VZW on this, but that's the word on the street and I really hope it proves to be true. I still have unlimited data on 4 of my 5 family plan lines and if they steal the contract upgrade subsidies from me I'll be f*#king pissed since it's a value of around $20/month per line.
On a side note I'm looking for a DE Note 4. If anyone has any leads let me know. Those things are like leprechauns these days.
If someone here with a DE wants to move to a different phone I have a contract upgrade available with Verizon so I can trade you any new phone for a DE Note 4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@vmod32 I sent you a PM.
madchainsawer said:
Get a unlocked phone off of tmobile and you can have removable back battery and sd card and you can put a verizon chip and root.
Sent from my SM-N910V using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not to repeat what you just said but are you saying that if I get an unlocked phone designed for T-Mobile that I can run it on the Verizon network as long as I put the Verizon sim card in? That would be awesome as I want to buy a note 4 developer edition but can't find one.
burbank said:
Not to repeat what you just said but are you saying that if I get an unlocked phone designed for T-Mobile that I can run it on the Verizon network as long as I put the Verizon sim card in? That would be awesome as I want to buy a note 4 developer edition but can't find one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No - this doesn't work as Verizon has to white list the device for it to work on their network.
So is it just sadistic that this page is still up?
http://www.samsung.com/us/support/owners/product/ET-N910VMKEVZW
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.”
Hello XDA community. Just want to thank the providers, mods and users in advance for providing a cool forum to discuss related matters, as well as for any help provided to me in my struggle to get past this carrier locked bootloader. I find it very bothersome to not have access to my own phone by root. Especially now when my carrier (to be unnamed here) is forcing a sim card swap and re-branding of its company in my province in Canada under new agreement and terms in time with the passing of bill C-11.
Bill C-11: An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Given the political climate, i'm deciding to leave this carrier. I've a sat phone with a large bank of minutes which lacks the usefulness of a smart device. But will have to do if alternative carrier (volta wireless https://www.voltawireless.com/ ) is unable to provide functional alternative. I'm currently waiting for a sim card from Volta but have concerns about the ability to use their app on this phone with the current firmware installed. I've already discovered, after resisting 3 years of updates on this phone, when i allowed the phone to update in order to install gopro software ( it killed me to do it, but needed camera for an event and panicked), that certain radio show app would no longer access or buffer stream from source. So i have a feeling apps like Volta Wireless one are going to struggle as well. I've not tested with their sim card installed yet, but currently the Volta app is able to receive sms, but not send. Voice and data appear to be working though. So a third party voip app would likely function. (need to test) I've heard reports of others with this issue leading me to wonder if the One Ui or android version might be playing a hand?
Please bear with me. My experience with much of this technology in terms of unlocking or rooting is limited. I've jailbroke my Iphone4 a long time ago, my samsung S5 (also had a carrier locked bootloader that was able to circumvent) i rooted about 5 years ago with cyangenmod and then drove over it with my truck.
My current phone delema:
Samsung S8 sm-g950w / G950WVLS8CTI1 question? does the "S8" mean it has vers 8 bootloader?
One UI version 1.0 / Android ver 9
Currently i'm 100% missing the "OEM unlock" toggle. No amount of changing date and queuing the update will help as is a Canadian carrier with modded rom - G950WVLS8CTI1 i believe.
I could use some guidance from the more experienced than I. Even if to simply tell me there is not currently a viable option for this phone. Newb question- Can Odin flash a rom on the dl screen with a locked bootloader? I'm curious how a rom set by sammobile would work? - https://www.sammobile.com/samsung/galaxy-s8/firmware/SM-G950W/XAC/download/G950WVLS8CTI1/376914/ As i recall that was the solution to getting past this same issue with my old Samsung S5. I followed a guide on that and likely different circumstances on my S8 phone now.
Security is of concern so root modding with online service seems too sketchy to me, both in terms of the phone and the credit card required. I think sammobile would be pretty secure if solution was applying their rom if possible?
Once again, thanks in advance for any who read this far. I appreciate any advice or opinions on anything discussed. Let me know what your thoughts are on service like Volta. There is not unlimited data plans in my province / region. So if their service works then it will be very worth it. I just need a good rooted phone with secure platform to test their app on to know if it works with their carrier sim card installed. They do sell a phone but i'm wading in on a month to month to test first. This service is more or less in beta in my region and they are ruffling feathers (based on bot messaging on youtube results). I'll report my findings here.
Stay free!