Database Users

It's not Rooting, its Openness says google

I found this article VERY interesting, and thought some of you may enjoy it.
Posted by Google themselves; http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/12/its-not-rooting-its-openness.html
If you don't understand that, the people at digimoe made it more clear...
http://digimoe.com/google-says-andr...droid-os-is-made-for-rooting-nexus-s-included

As a developer phone, that's certainly true. I don't know. I mean Samsung doesn't have a reputation for locking their phones down hard, even on the non-google line. A reputation for **** development and longterm support, perhaps. And maybe that was google's thinking in choosing them as the Nexus 1 follow up. Certainly google has plenty to gain by helping Samsung out on the Galaxy S line. We'll see what the future brings.
But it's also easy for Google to talk about openness while sitting in the comfy confines of Mountain View. Can anyone go find me Google's support number for the Nexus S?

Not exactly Google's number, but there is this:
http://www.google.com/nexus/#/help
Google provides the OS, but Samsung is the manufacturer and the one in charge of quality control is responsible for support. This is as it should be.
They do provide a direct support phone number, it is just for Samsung.

good read.

T313C0mun1s7 said:
Not exactly Google's number, but there is this:
http://www.google.com/nexus/#/help
Google provides the OS, but Samsung is the manufacturer and the one in charge of quality control is responsible for support. This is as it should be.
They do provide a direct support phone number, it is just for Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point was that it's easy to call for openness when you don't care about the consequences. Would you rather Tmobile/Samsung provide a link to root your phone at the time of purchase that also immediately voids your warranty? I doubt most here would take that offer.
I like Google's talk about openness, as selective as it may be. But I suspect the manufacturers and carriers roll their eyes when they get these lectures, and I don't necessarily blame them.

WoodDraw said:
My point was that it's easy to call for openness when you don't care about the consequences. Would you rather Tmobile/Samsung provide a link to root your phone at the time of purchase that also immediately voids your warranty? I doubt most here would take that offer.
I like Google's talk about openness, as selective as it may be. But I suspect the manufacturers and carriers roll their eyes when they get these lectures, and I don't necessarily blame them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except for 1 thing, they are choosing to of their own free will sell a device that is based on a free, open source operating system that has a license that states a requirement of openness, and even that their source modifications are required to be submitted back to the source tree.
The drivers are proprietary, and that is fine - even if it is the reason for the requirement for us to use leaked ROMs to get all the hardware to work. Rooting does not change the drivers, and this discussion ended at rooting. That said even after rooting the parts that get changed are just the open source parts that the devs have the source for because it is in the AOSP depository.
If they don't want to support your changes to the OS that is their prerogative, but they still have a responsibility to support the hardware for defects.
At some point I would like to see someone with the money, time, and conviction sue their carrier when they refuse to honor the warranty because it was rooted. See that clause breaks many of the original licenses that make up the various parts of the OS. In fact they are required to provide a copy to the GPL or at least a link to it AND the source itself. They know they can't win this, which is why I think they like to say it voids the warranty, but as long as the phone looks like it is stock (which is more about not supporting errors you introduced) then they don't really look too hard.
If they don't want to let people exercise their rights under the various open source licenses, then they should stick to devices with enforceable, proprietary operating systems like iOS, Windows Mobile, Symbian, and Web OS.

"Openness" is an excuse, obviously.
I like how Google is trying to save face, and that other site is trying hard to help them along.
People these days seem to just be less concerned about security.
Actively fixing security holes doesn't matter for an OS that cannot be esily pushed out to users as updates. Does it really matter if you fix security holes, but half o fyour users never recieve those fixes?
Well, yea, it does... Just not as much as they think it does.
Also the sandboxing thing is a joke, studies have been conducted and lots of Android apps are sharing data with each other foe the benefit of Advertisers, etc.

My rough draft letter to FCC, BBB, and FTC, or anyone else who will listen

I would appreciate any help, guidance or criticism from the community regarding my letter. Please feel free to modify it to you own needs, if it's something you would like to use.
Admittedly, I am redundant. I often beat the dead horse. I am repetitive. I tried hard to be concise and to the point.
Thank you
To whom it may concern,
Verizon insists that a encrypted *boot loader is for the good of the user, and other users on Verizon's network. All Motorola's, sold on Verizon's network have encrypted boot loaders. HTC's do not and up until the latest Samsung Galaxy s3, Samsung did not either. Why did Verizon choose to encrypt the boot loaders? I'd like to offer my opinion- phone sales. Let me explain...
Verizon and cell phone manufacturers are putting out great hardware. For the past couple years, hardware development had hit sort of a stand still. Screens are getting better, but only really to the most critical of users. Most users can't tell the difference between the phones of today versus the phones of last year- with the exception of the operating system. Certainly, technology has progressed but to the average user, the differences are negligible.
A little over a year ago, I purchased a Motorola Droid X, locked encrypted boot loader and all. The hardware is excellent. 1ghz processor, 512 mb of ram, etc etc. The phone, as third party developers have figured out, is perfectly capable of running the newest operating system from Google- Ice Cream Sandwich. The phone launched with Android OS Eclair. The device was upgraded to Gingerbread and there it sat. Admittedly, the phone may run a bit slow and lack some features that the newest Ice Cream Sandwich operating system is capable of, however, the hardware can support the OS. That said, one has to ask why, if the hardware is capable, won't Motorola and Verizon upgrade it to ice cream sandwich? Why is the device encrypted so these OS modifications can not be loaded onto the device by third party developers? The answer is simple- phone sales.
Today's smart phones aren't marketed with hardware specs being the priority as, again, it doesn't mean much to the average user. Instead, they are marketed with what OS comes on the device. My newest phone, the Samsung Galaxy s3 launched with "Ice Cream Sandwich!" We were getting the latest and the greatest from Google and Samsung. The best hardware available, the newest OS available from Google on the best network, Verizon. However, what we also got was a locked and encrypted boot loader which prevents third party development, adding or removing features from the phone at the whim of the developer.
This third party support poses a problem for Verizon, who, ultimately sells phones to the end user. The problem being, if the hardware isn't making leaps and bounds advances anymore, and the phone is open to third party development, why would anyone purchase a new phone when they can simply upgrade their current device? Ah, but a encrypted boot loader prevents this third party development and allows Verizon and the phones manufacturer to simply stop supporting the device. Thus, my Motorola Droid X, which is perfectly capable of running the newest OS, cannot because it's encrypted and locked. As a result, my ONLY solution to step up to an upgraded OS is, to upgrade my hardware as well. Which is unfortunate considering there's nothing wrong with my hardware, at this time.
Apple, did it correctly. They continue to upgrade and support the old devices- sans some features as it deems necessary for hardware specifications. Even the iPhone of yesteryear runs the newest operating system from Apple. They realize that not all consumers can upgrade, or see the need to, however, their hardware specs differ greatly from androids. Apple produces their own phone. There's one manufacturer. There's no competition for the iPhone as its only competition is last years model. Those who enjoy the iPhone quickly flock to the newest hardware, even though they know their old hardware will be supported. Android, is not this way.
New hardware for android comes out all the time, with differing features, differing specs and from many different manufactures. It's similar to the current PC market except that when you buy a PC, you can be reasonably certain that you can upgrade your operating system to the newest Microsoft version without issues, provided the hardware supports it. Certainly everyone knows there's no restrictions at this point that prevent you from even changing the operating system on your PC from say, Windows XP to Windows 7, Linux, or, even, Apples OS even though it's hardware isn't supported officially by the OS. The option to do so is still there, provided the hardware will support the OS. As well, doing this does not void any hardware warranty. You do lose the option for technical software support, provided you've changed the operating system but this is to be expected. This isn't the Android handheld device market created by Verizon.
Verizon has created a situation where, if you want the newest operating system from Google, you've got to purchase a new phone, even though your hardware is perfectly capable of running the newest OS. This is done by encrypting the boot loader, preventing those savvy enough from upgrading the OS, thus, forcing phone sales. Those who are interested in upgrading hardware can do so, but those who are only interested in acquiring the newest OS are prevented. Can you imagine being forced to upgrade any government agencies hardware simply because of a software upgrade even if the hardware itself was capable of running this software upgrade but it's manufacturer encrypted the device, thus preventing said agency from doing so? The behavior is unacceptable in the PC world, as well as the smartphone world.
I hereby request, that Verizon be forced to comply with the terms and conditions it agreed to at the time Verizon purchased block C,
* * *§27.16 Network access requirements for Block C in the 746–757 and 776– 787 MHz bands.
Specifically, paragraph 2(e):
* * *(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee’s standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other provider's networks.
The encrypted boot loader does in fact prohibit the potential for me to use my device on any network I choose, as well as the encrypted boot loader does in fact disable my ability to chose the operating system of my choice, clearly violating The terms and conditions set forth by*§27.16
I hereby request the FCC take immediate action with Verizon. I hereby demand that Verizon fully release all keys, codes and programs to disable the boot loader encryption for all devices sold across its network which violate the terms set forth in*§27.16. I hereby demand all devices sold by Verizon Wireless unconditionally follow this standard set forth by*§27.16.
I respectfully request the FCC use its full power in taking action against Verizon. It is a fact that Verizon has knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly broken the terms of*§27.16 and I ask the FCC ask Verizon to comply, or, return the spectrum for re-auction to another party who will comply with these open standards.
I am aware of Verizon's official statement:
* * *"Verizon Wireless has established a standard of excellence in customer experience with our branded devices and customer service. There is an expectation that if a customer has a question, they can call Verizon Wireless for answers that help them maximize their enjoyment and use of their wireless phone. Depending on the device, an open (read "unencrypted") boot loader could prevent Verizon Wireless from providing the same level of customer experience and support because it would allow users to change the phone or otherwise modify the software and, potentially, negatively impact how the phone connects with the network. The addition of unapproved software could also negatively impact the wireless experience for other customers. It is always a delicate balance for any company to manage the technology choices we make for our branded devices and the requests of a few who may want a different device experience. We always review our technology choices to ensure that we provide the best solution for as many customers as possible."
However, I must ask that if this is the case, why is Verizon offering the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which has an easily unlock able unencrypted boot loader, and rumored to be offering the same Samsung Galaxy s3 for use on its network but as a "developers edition?" If Verizon's official statement is to be believed and the encryption/closing of the boot loader was critical to both customer satisfaction and network reliability, why have so many HTC and Samsung devices been released without an encrypted/closed boot loader? Why does Verizon continue to harm their customer satisfaction and potentially harm users of its network by allowing such phones to be activated on their network?*
In conclusion, it is obvious the business model of Verizon Wireless and the true reason, regardless of their official statement, of the encrypted boot loader is, in fact, to render a phones software obsolete long before the hardware of the device is obsolete, thus, increasing phone sales via marketing of the latest and greatest operating system.
Looking forward to your correspondence
AC
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

ancashion said:
I would appreciate any help, guidance or criticism from the community regarding my letter. Please feel free to modify it to you own needs, if it's something you would like to use.
Admittedly, I am redundant. I often beat the dead horse. I am repetitive. I tried hard to be concise and to the point.
Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................
Why dont you just leave Verizon ?

Bagbug said:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................
Why dont you just leave Verizon ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Contract, #1
Only provider in my area, #2
Why is it okay Verizon can willingly break the law, and the only recourse those have who are affected by it, or feel wronged by it, is to "leave?"
Lame, man...

Bagbug said:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................
Why dont you just leave Verizon ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool response bro.
If people don't complain, how can you expect anything to change? Is it to much to ask for something we pay for (350 - 700) to be like the same phone on other cell companies? At&t, Sprint,Tmobile didn't seem to have a problem with it being unlocked and neither should verizon.
I'm with op. anything is better than nothing even if they just throw it in the trash bin.

ancashion said:
Contract, #1
Only provider in my area, #2
Why is it okay Verizon can willingly break the law, and the only recourse those have who are affected by it, or feel wronged by it, is to "leave?"
Lame, man...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1- why sign with them in the first place ?
2- yeah right

Instead of writing a letter that does not particularly offer any pathway to action you should attempt to get Verizon to unlock the bootloader. If they can not you should be filing an FCC complaint.
Bonus points if you organize other people to do the same since Verizon is allocated a certain number of complaints per X hundred thousand users. This would be a good starting point:
http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
As for the letter itself you can delete everything up to your demands and FCC regs. You are talking about collateral issues for the most part that don't bear on this situation. You are going to lose the interest of your reader before you ever get even close to the regs or your demands. Open with A PARAGRAPH OR TWO stating:
that The GS3 has shipped with a locked and encrypted bootloader.
the FCC has taken previous action when Verizon locked hardware features of the phone to boosts its bottme line (see: VZ Navigator issue).
You believe that this action is in violation of following FCC regulations as more fully discussed below
The actions you request including, but not limited to, the unlocking of the bootloader.
Close with a paragraph restating your demand and tying things together.

Bagbug said:
1- why sign with them in the first place ?
2- yeah right
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1: I was looking for superior customer service and superior phones coming from us cellular. My area is rural to say the least- providers are few and far between. I'll go you one further to say that truthfully, 3G Internet speeds are faster than any other Internet locally with the possible exception of satellite Internet which is a: too expensive and b: way too expensive! Us cellular, locally, sucks as well and is our only other provider.
2: my zip is 96091- check for yourself- don't forget I may be live in one of the roaming zones on any carrier as well . Feel free to report back with your findings!
Furthermore, Verizon accepted the terms of block c. They tried to fight it, and lost. Now, they are refusing to be bound by those terms. What exactly is wrong with wanting a company to be bound by the terms that THEY willingly accepted?
As well, why come in here with such hate to my position? How about, instead, you offer your insight as to WHY it would be in our best interest to drop it? Why do you side with Verizon, exactly?

We should find a way to organize all of the users here to all submit letters like this so they see that Verizon has really caused a problem
also what categories should be picked on that FCC page?

bobloblaw1 said:
Instead of writing a letter that does not particularly offer any pathway to action you should attempt to get Verizon to unlock the bootloader. If they can not you should be filing an FCC complaint.
Bonus points if you organize other people to do the same since Verizon is allocated a certain number of complaints per X hundred thousand users. This would be a good starting point:
http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
As for the letter itself you can delete everything up to your demands and FCC regs. You are talking about collateral issues for the most part that don't bear on this situation. You are going to lose the interest of your reader before you ever get even close to the regs or your demands. Open with A PARAGRAPH OR TWO stating:
that The GS3 has shipped with a locked and encrypted bootloader.
the FCC has taken previous action when Verizon locked hardware features of the phone to boosts its bottme line (see: VZ Navigator issue).
You believe that this action is in violation of following FCC regulations as more fully discussed below
The actions you request including, but not limited to, the unlocking of the bootloader.
Close with a paragraph restating your demand and tying things together.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Incredible! Thank you for your insight!
Is the "law" portion of your name at all relavent?

ancashion said:
Incredible! Thank you for your insight!
Is the "law" portion of your name at all relavent?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol its a character from Arrested Development (TV Show)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwWAsNZTnug

IAmPears said:
lol its a character from Arrested Development (TV Show)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwWAsNZTnug
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Arrested Development aka locked boot loader. lol.
Good luck with the loader, gotta try something.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app

IAmPears said:
We should find a way to organize all of the users here to all submit letters like this so they see that Verizon has really caused a problem
also what categories should be picked on that FCC page?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wireless telephone
Billing, Service, privacy, Number portability and other issues
I presume
This 5 minute wait between posts and captcha are killing me...

ancashion said:
Wireless telephone
Billing, Service, privacy, Number portability and other issues
I presume
This 5 minute wait between posts and captcha are killing me...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you've got 11 posts so that restriction should be removed now, 2 minutes between posts tho
i wonder if we could say it was deceptive or unlawful advertising

ancashion said:
Incredible! Thank you for your insight!
Is the "law" portion of your name at all relavent?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perhaps.....let's just say I can't honestly recite the line from Jay-Z's 99 problems, "I ain't passed the bar but I know a little bit....". That said, I'm only a baby lawyer and this is not something I have any expertise in.
Hopefully that is a good starting point for you. Feel free to PM me if you would like further input.
And yes, lawyers can like comedy shows and double/triple entendres as well =)

IAmPears said:
you've got 11 posts so that restriction should be removed now, 2 minutes between posts tho
i wonder if we could say it was deceptive or unlawful advertising
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're correct, captcha is gone. Thanks.
If they had advertised that the bootloader was unencrypted we'd have something.
How about the misuse of the web browsers cache? Those who are on tiered or shared data plans are getting hosed on data usage because the browser fully or partially reloads the previous web page rather than call it from cache or memory. I talked to Samsung advanced support about it and they confirmed it. Beings how some are charged for every kb used, it would seem you should have full control over what uses data and when and how much.
Similar to why cars have to state their mpg- can you imagine the restrictions there would be if ford only allowed use of their fuel, or, if Chevy only allowed the use of their fuel? Insane!

Take two:
To whom it may concern,
My recently purchased Samsung Galaxy s3 from Verizon Wireless is encrypted / locked, thus, my ability to choose the software used on my device and take my device to another network are both hindered by this encryption / lock in direct violation of the terms set forth by*§27.16 Network access requirements for Block C in the 746–757 and 776– 787 MHz bands.
Specifically, paragraph 2(e): Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee’s standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other provider's networks.
I hereby request the FCC take immediate action with Verizon. I hereby demand that Verizon fully release all keys, codes and programs to disable the boot loader encryption for all devices sold across its network which violate the terms set forth in §27.16. I hereby demand all devices sold by Verizon Wireless unconditionally follow this standard set forth by §27.16.
I respectfully request the FCC use its full power in taking action against Verizon. It is a fact that Verizon has knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly broken the terms of §27.16 and I ask the FCC ask Verizon to comply, or, return the spectrum for re-auction to another party who will comply with the standards set forth by the FCC.
In conclusion, it is my opinion, regardless of Verizon wireless official statement, that the true reason to lock /encrypt the device is to prevent future software upgrades to the device once Verizon Wireless has deemed the device "out of date." By preventing the end user the ability to modify the base operating system of the device, Verizon has the ability make obsolete, at it's discretion, any device shipped with an encrypted boot loader.
Respectfully Yours

ancashion said:
Take two:
To whom it may concern,
My recently purchased Samsung Galaxy s3 from Verizon Wireless is encrypted / locked, thus, my ability to choose the software used on my device and take my device to another network are both hindered by this encryption / lock in direct violation of the terms set forth by*§27.16 Network access requirements for Block C in the 746–757 and 776– 787 MHz bands.
Specifically, paragraph 2(e):
* * *(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee’s standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other provider's networks.
I hereby request the FCC take immediate action with Verizon. I hereby demand that Verizon fully release all keys, codes and programs to disable the boot loader encryption for all devices sold across its network which violate the terms set forth in §27.16. I hereby demand all devices sold by Verizon Wireless unconditionally follow this standard set forth by §27.16.
I respectfully request the FCC use its full power in taking action against Verizon. It is a fact that Verizon has knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly broken the terms of §27.16 and I ask the FCC ask Verizon to comply, or, return the spectrum for re-auction to another party who will comply with the standards set forth by the FCC.
In conclusion, it is my opinion, regardless of Verizon wireless official statement, that the true reason to lock /encrypt the device is to prevent future software upgrades to the device once Verizon Wireless has deemed the device "out of date." By preventing the end user the ability to modify the base operating system of the device, Verizon has the ability make obsolete, at it's discretion, any device shipped with an encrypted boot loader.
Respectfully Yours
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IMO I liked the first version a lot, but I could see the FCC getting it and basically saying:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

Think you nailed it on the second one. :thumbup:
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app

IAmPears said:
IMO I liked the first version a lot, but I could see the FCC getting it and basically saying:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol
It's a delicate balance. You want to tell some back story, you want the person reading to come away having learned something, but you want to keep their attention at the same time and truthfully, boblolaw1 is correct that getting more users on board, the better. My droid x story doesn't apply to all so a version that was straight and to the point, that does apply to all is probably more useful for the simple fact it can be copied and pasted.

I may have thought of a lateral way to achieve the desired result..
"handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other provider's networks"
One could simply buy out their contract, and request the key due to the law above. When they fail to comply, the FCC would have more grounds to take action.
Just another variable.

Is it now illegal to root the Nexus 7

I read the courts reviewed the ruling of phones being legal to root, but then judged that Tablets were a different story. I heard that with tablets to legally be able to root, you have to contact the manufacturer and get permission per ruling. I know this is bogus to many people, and most of you here I assume wouldnt care either way what the courts rule. So this thread is about the legality of the issue, not really meant for debate. I just want to know if it is considered legal to root the Nexus 7, is it allowed?

Righteous Joe said:
I read the courts reviewed the ruling of phones being legal to root, but then judged that Tablets were a different story. I heard that with tablets to legally be able to root, you have to contact the manufacturer and get permission per ruling. I know this is bogus to many people, and most of you here I assume wouldnt care either way what the courts rule. So this thread is about the legality of the issue, not really meant for debate. I just want to know if it is considered legal to root the Nexus 7, is it allowed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you read this? Doesn't sound right to be honest, not sure how rooting a tablet would differ in a legal sense from rooting a phone, they are near enough the same device after all. Ultimately it is your device that you own so you are free to do with it as you wish, its not as if you're rooting will have a major impact on anyone else. Unless you are caught installing pirate apps which would be considered as illegal.

Writing "I read [...]" and then not following up with a source means you completely lack credibility
Maybe you are referring to the decision cited in these sources
http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/25/3556740/copyright-dmca-jailbreak-unlock-mod-ruling
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...pyright-protection-systems-for-access-control
Take your time and read these sources
Also take your time to read up on material by senior xda members on the difference between rooting your device and unlocking your bootloader. It basically renders your "illegal to root" statement completely invalid.
Moving back to the Nexus 7, although the ruling is vague as #@!$ when it comes to tablets, your not forcibly breaking open the bootloader; its practically an on/off switch on the N7--Google is not coming after you.

The common belief that jailbreaking is legal is wrong. US Digital Millennium Copyright Act was challenged, and it was accepted that it's legal to "jailbreak" a device for the purpose of carrier unlock, but not for other purpose.
As most tablets don't have 3G and thus no carrier......

Jailbreaking is illegal for iPad.
But unlocking and rooting a Nexus 7 is a whole different story. You don't need a exploit, thus you are not breaking any protection, that is why it is legal.
At least in the EU.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app

There is a further distinction that can be drawn. In the case of an Android tablet it is using an OS that is in effect free of any restrictions - so you can "copy the book, change it and publish it, provided you acknowledge the source", contrast this with Microsoft and Apple ......sue,damages etc.

CrazyPeter said:
The common belief that jailbreaking is legal is wrong. US Digital Millennium Copyright Act was challenged, and it was accepted that it's legal to "jailbreak" a device for the purpose of carrier unlock, but not for other purpose.
As most tablets don't have 3G and thus no carrier......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are incorrect good sir. The jaillbreaking exemption, which is no longer valid, didn't come about from a legal challenge. It was granted by the Librarian of Congress under the normal review process that takes place every three years. Furthermore, rooting phones for purposes of installing and operating legally obtained software is also exempted.
To address the OP, there's a lot of FUD going around about rooting tablets. The factual reality is that absolutely nothing at all has changed. Rest assured that, contrary to the sensationalism from some, the sky is in no danger of falling.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

If rooting a tablet (tablet computer) is illegal, then why don't we get only user account on windows (Administrator account locked) and when we install Ubuntu, why are we not only provided with our user folder and don't have access to anything else? It's exactly the same. I don't know why Android, as basically another one of oh-so-many Linux distros would be the only one, where you are not aloud to access root folders? Linux is open source, and it is your right to be provided with root access.
And since the purpose of root on Android is not installing cracked apps (you can sideload them with enabling 'outer sources'), I see absolutely no reason, why wouldn't it be legal.
Is editing your BIOS settings on PC legal? Again, I don't see why different rules would apply to desktop then to smaller version of PC (which smartphones pretty much are).
You bought the device, it's yours. Even if you decide to take it to another carrier, you paid them, you accepted the contract, you pay penalty in case you cancel the contract sooner. Just because I bought a car in Germany, doesn't mean it's suddenly illegal to drive it in Slovenia.
iOS is different issue. It's not open source, but again I don't see why jailbreaking would be illegal. Of course, installing cracked apps is different, but that's illegal anywhere.

This kind of garbage bugs be to no end... If I buy product A, then I should be able to do what ever I want to product A how ever I want, in regards to electronics. I bought the device, and no judge is going to tell me I can not unlock/root/etc it.

Just ignore...how many movies/apps have you pirated...?
Most Android OEMs LET us root. No judge can change that, nor the open-source nature of Android as an operating system.
(Most) GNU/Linux distributions do allow us to login as the root user. Rooting an Android device is the same concept as logging on as root on GNU/Linux. It's there, you're welcome to use it, but don't blame us if something goes wrong.
---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------
CrazyPeter said:
The common belief that jailbreaking is legal is wrong. US Digital Millennium Copyright Act was challenged, and it was accepted that it's legal to "jailbreak" a device for the purpose of carrier unlock, but not for other purpose.
As most tablets don't have 3G and thus no carrier......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How many people that jailbroke their iOS devices have not installed pirated apps? Does anyone _actually_ care about the DMCA?
In other words, you can't stop a hacker.

gnustomp said:
Just ignore...how many movies/apps have you pirated...?
Most Android OEMs LET us root. No judge can change that, nor the open-source nature of Android as an operating system.
(Most) GNU/Linux distributions do allow us to login as the root user. Rooting an Android device is the same concept as logging on as root on GNU/Linux. It's there, you're welcome to use it, but don't blame us if something goes wrong.
---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------
How many people that jailbroke their iOS devices have not installed pirated apps? Does anyone _actually_ care about the DMCA?
In other words, you can't stop a hacker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You know what, comments like you piss me off. I have downloaded my fair share of music, but when it comes to apps I will not pirate them. These developers work their asses off to make a decent app and then put a .99 price tag on them, and you claim that that is too damn expecive? You aren't a hacker, your just a jerk. I have bought over 150 apps on the play store, and I will continue to support the developers that work oh so hard for so little.
Good day sir.

AFAinHD said:
You know what, comments like you piss me off. I have downloaded my fair share of music, but when it comes to apps I will not pirate them. These developers work their asses off to make a decent app and then put a .99 price tag on them, and you claim that that is too damn expecive? You aren't a hacker, your just a jerk. I have bought over 150 apps on the play store, and I will continue to support the developers that work oh so hard for so little.
Good day sir.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No offense, but the overly white knight attitude is just as bad as the pirate attitude.

when google comes after me for supporting their os with a law suit for changing my devices gui via root would be the end of days. So, yeah won't happen. sony and microsoft just ban people and their mac ip on their console i'd assume if they ever did do anything, they could ban you from market?

I Am Marino said:
No offense, but the overly white knight attitude is just as bad as the pirate attitude.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im not trying to be a white knight, I don't care about pirating music and movies, because they are overpriced as hell, but app developers work very hard for something that they put a .99 cent price tag on. There is no reason why you should not support them.

AFAinHD said:
There is no reason why you should not support them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I see at least one reason, (which of course is valid only to some apps, not all of them), and that is usualy true to big games only:
- how long have you today to request reffunds for apps you do not like / want / can not use? 15 minutes? or is it even shorter time now? (I do not know how it is now, sorry, I only use free/ad-supported apps now)
- how long does it takes for you to download 2GB of app data? For me it is definitly a LOT longer time that 15 minutes...
- which one of these (above mentioned) apps offer some kind of trial or limited demo or something? How can you try such apps to find out whether you like it or not ?
Can you see the reason for why not to support such apps? Or at least in the first place? Of coure that it is better (for many reasons) to buy the app in the end if you like it. But you can not tell that if you can not evaluate it.
And you are wrong that these apps cost lest than $1 and thus are cheap (or at least I understand that this was something you were triing to say), most of such apps cost $5-$15, and that can be realy a lot of money if you are not from US, just because you earn $15 per hour does not mean everyone does, there are countries where people works whole day or even week for $15.
Oh, and just to be clear: I do not thing that pirating software is good thing, but sometimes it is the only way how to evaluate something. And you should be allowed do do that, right? Or would you buy a car without (at least) triing to sit in it?
All right, all right, we can just preted that the apps (or game or music or anything) which looks like we want (or need) it does not exists, but to be honest: Can you realy do that? Especially when there is no similar replacement? Or would you just happily pay any price the DEV asks, hoping that it will be usefull to you?
And one more thing:
Lot of people here is stating that court or local law or anyone forbids/encourages something - well this kind of information is totally useless if you forget to tell us in which country/region is that true.
And just to prove my point: there is a country that legaly allows downloading of audio files. Also there is a coutry that allows legaly to use pirated Operating system (namely that was true for Windows XP, not sure if they extended that somehow). Is that information usefull to you? I do not think so, unless you live there and in that case, you should already now...

..

I don't mean to derail the thread but since it's been brought up I wanted to address this quickly.
AFAinHD said:
Im not trying to be a white knight, I don't care about pirating music and movies, because they are overpriced as hell, but app developers work very hard for something that they put a .99 cent price tag on. There is no reason why you should not support them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm going to try to do this without any self promotion.
It's funny that you say that. As a musician and songwriter who sells tracks at $.99 a piece (and have spent more money on recording equipment and music distribution to never break even), I beg to differ, and I don't have a band helping me out. I put out my albums for the cost of total tracks or maybe a dollar less for that "added value" feeling. Or I let people pay whatever they want thanks to my official online store giving me the ability to set that.
I'm not trying to start an argument or fight, but I just want to enlighten you on this point. Whether it's music or app development, creativity and hard thinking and writing\coding is involved. In both processes there is a lot of trial and error, time and money spent. The pricing of an app or a music track seems to be dependent on the value to the people as seen by the authors. Music seems more standardized whereas different apps will have different prices depending on what they do. But that does not mean there was any less effort or creativity put into music or films than an app. To offset the pirating a lot of musicians at least ask to recommend to friends in hopes that someone buys our tracks to help offset the cost of what we had to pay to put the music out there in the first place.
In the days of filesharing about 8 or so years ago I had downloaded some music. Those programs got old and died, and since then I have only bought CDs or used legal streaming services, typically from those artists I used to download music from. Now that my music is for sale in places I understand the arguments both in favor of free sharing and against it. There's a solution to both.
In either case, in the end we all just want to make even a little money for our creations. I don't think it's logical to suggest that music is overpriced because doesn't take as much effort as app development.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming....

This i totally agree with .This can stand for anything rather its music apps or even a drawing of a home done in Cad or even a book.. Think if you spend 2 years writing a Book. Then two days after its released you see it on a pirated site when its being retailed for 13.00 .While you have 2 years worth of bills piled up unpaid.Hoping the book sales. App developers often go thru this same thing. I like most everyone else did download some music in the past.NO longer would I do so . Never software and never reading material. Now if its not legal its not coming in our home or on my devices..If its to expensive the author or developer did not want to sell it.
Bottom line is support the people who Create the things that make your life enjoyable and easier to live. They wanna make ends meet to.. But its not really about the money its about what is right and wrong..
sgtpepper64 said:
I don't mean to derail the thread but since it's been brought up I wanted to address this quickly.
I'm going to try to do this without any self promotion.
It's funny that you say that, as a musician and songwriter who sells tracks at $.99 a piece (and have spent more money on recording equipment and music distribution to never break even), I beg to differ, and I don't have a band helping me out. I put out my albums for the cost of total tracks or maybe a dollar less for that "added value" feeling. Or I let people pay whatever they want thanks to my official online store giving me the ability to set that.
I'm not trying to start an argument or fight, but I just want to enlighten you on this point. Whether it's music or app development, creativity and hard thinking and writing\coding is involved. In both processes there is a lot of trial and error, time and money spent. The pricing of an app or a music track seems to be dependent on the value to the people as seen by the authors. Music seems more standardized whereas different apps will have different prices depending on what they do. But that does not mean there was any less effort or creativity put into music or films than an app. To offset the pirating a lot of musicians at least ask to recommend to friends in hopes that someone buys our tracks to help offset the cost of what we had to pay to put the music out there in the first place.
In the days of filesharing about 8 or so years ago I had downloaded some music. Those programs got old and died, and since then I have only bought CDs or used legal streaming services, typically from those artists I used to download music from. Now that my music is for sale in places I understand the arguments both in favor of free sharing and against it. There's a solution to both.
In either case, in the end we all just want to make even a little money for our creations. I don't think it's logical to suggest that music is overpriced because doesn't take as much effort as app development.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Did you unlock your Moto? Did you know you can't sell it now?!?!

Was looking at the Terms and Conditions of unlocking the bootloader today... ran across this condition that I haven't seen anyone mention:
From the Unlocking your Bootloader T&C agreement page
(4) User is unlocking the Device and/or altering the Device's software or operating system for his/her own personal use; User agrees not to transfer (i.e. sell, lease, or otherwise receive compensation from any third party for the right to use, possess, or operate such Device) such Device to any third party
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From the Bootloader unlock legal agreement where it is paraphased in "common" terms in the intro to the legal document.
4. Devices that have been unlocked are for your personal use only. Once you unlock the device, you can only use it for your personal use, and may not sell or otherwise transfer the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just throwing it out there for (fun) discussion purposes... seeings how we all "agreed" to this.

Funny. Because that's going to happen.
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I saw that when I unlocked my devices, didn't deter me any.
But I never sell electronics anyway, that's why I have a drawer full of phones.

It would be interesting to see how it gets enforced if at all. I guess the only way it would happen is if the party who buys it takes legal action against the person who unlocked/sold it to them.

Concerns for Security? (no, not the lockscreen video)

Hi,
I am currently testing a few dual-sim phones for use by a few people within my company. We purchased one Note 9, a few S9s and a OnePlun 6T (it's like Christmas early at my work).
First discovery was that "new, factory unlocked dual-sim" on Amazon doesn't always mean that. Since dual/sim phones aren't sold directly by Samsung, we had to buy them on Amazon and at the very least, one of the S9s was not new. It had a specific knox setting for a bank in south america so that did not come from the factory. So not having a trusted source for dual-sim Samsung is not something I like.
I then purchased a 6T directly from OnePlus and this one is clearly straight from the manufacturer. I'm happy with that and with the fast updates, but now that two phone manufacturers are making the news for security reasons, it doesn't make me confident that OnePlus doesn't gather data without users knowing. Huawei and ZTE are being boycotted left and right for security purposes, companies are shifting towards what I think in an illusion of safety by focusing on products made in the US (doesn't mean chips aren't made in China).
So for my own curiosity, are there people out there concerned by the fact that OnePlus phones are made in China and that as of right now, two electronics manufacturers are involved in security concerns?

Everyone is spying on everyone : Rule #1 , destroy one country's economy by hitting it's strongest companies : Rule # 2
Now all depends what kind of security you are looking for. Samsung has made an "enterprise edition" of the Note9. with
Huawei has very slow updates and being in the US (i guess you are based there) forget about it. This for obvious guarantees, etc...
OnePlus is a great company, it had it's issues in the press oneplus-phones-collecting-sensitive-data But i think this was dealt with.
now depends in what business you are in, and how sensitive your information is.
I hate to say this, but Apple does offer good security (apparently) and now you can order dual SIM cards, or even use e-sim + nano SIM.
Now if someone REALLY wants to know things about you, they will find out. Thus the famous "I gOt nOtHinG tO HiDe".

Everyone is logging data they shouldn't and without consent I'm sure OnePlus is still doing it even if you select disagree, Google is the worst offender all of their services log everything best way to avoid is to run AOSP and FOSS apps avoid stock roms and Google services if you value privacy.

Nic2112 said:
Hi,
I am currently testing a few dual-sim phones for use by a few people within my company. We purchased one Note 9, a few S9s and a OnePlun 6T (it's like Christmas early at my work).
First discovery was that "new, factory unlocked dual-sim" on Amazon doesn't always mean that. Since dual/sim phones aren't sold directly by Samsung, we had to buy them on Amazon and at the very least, one of the S9s was not new. It had a specific knox setting for a bank in south america so that did not come from the factory. So not having a trusted source for dual-sim Samsung is not something I like.
I then purchased a 6T directly from OnePlus and this one is clearly straight from the manufacturer. I'm happy with that and with the fast updates, but now that two phone manufacturers are making the news for security reasons, it doesn't make me confident that OnePlus doesn't gather data without users knowing. Huawei and ZTE are being boycotted left and right for security purposes, companies are shifting towards what I think in an illusion of safety by focusing on products made in the US (doesn't mean chips aren't made in China).
So for my own curiosity, are there people out there concerned by the fact that OnePlus phones are made in China and that as of right now, two electronics manufacturers are involved in security concerns?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Turn off all feedback to OnePlus and the phone does not make any pings to strange servers.
I have my phone rooted and have installed apps that log access to ip addresses. I haven't see anything strange in a month.
I'm not concerned and turned logging off.

tech_head said:
and have installed apps that log access to ip addresses.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm listening...

I don't buy any devices that can't run Lineage. You can remove the logging programs entirely if you are worried about them still reporting back to OnePlus after opting out. I removed a long list of things, and my phone still works. The couple Huawei devices I've had, and actually are still in the house, run Lineage, so not really worried about them either.
I only buy devices that can be unlocked, and with the intent of running Lineage on them, so I don't really care what software comes on them. Heck my OP 5T sat new in the box until Lineage was released, I used my Nexus 5X while I waited.

Thanks for your feedback.
There's a huge push towards not using Huawei network equipment or not doing business with people who do so. I'm not worried about someone knowing too much about what I do with my phone because between Facebook and Google, anyone can buy that information. The security I'm more concerned about is information theft, leaking screenshots like OnePlus supposedly did at one point, text files filled with "key words" like another news story mentioned. We are even reconsidering laptops and putting a huge emphasis on computers not made in China. I'm guessing the political situation with the Huawei CEO isn't helping the situation either.

Nic2112 said:
The security I'm more concerned about is information theft, leaking screenshots like OnePlus supposedly did at one point, text files filled with "key words" like another news story mentioned.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have a OnePlus device? Remove the offending programs if you insist on running OxygenOS? You can secure your own device. Don't like Google collecting information, you can go without Google if you really wanted too. I just see this whole thing as a none issue I guess?
Nic2112 said:
We are even reconsidering laptops and putting a huge emphasis on computers not made in China. I'm guessing the political situation with the Huawei CEO isn't helping the situation either.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which leaves you with? What devices aren't made in China or made from components from China? I'm not sure any one device is more secure than another.
Anyone see this story:
Germany Refuses To Ban Huawei, Citing Lack of Real Evidence
This is why open source, and open devices are so important. We need things we can update, and things that can be audited. Some people may argue that makes them vulnerable but I disagree.

OhioYJ said:
Which leaves you with? What devices aren't made in China or made from components from China? I'm not sure any one device is more secure than another.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's also something I brought up, you can say Samsung phones don't say "Made in China" but it's highly likely that some components in there are which would have their own security flaws.

OhioYJ said:
You have a OnePlus device? Remove the offending programs if you insist on running OxygenOS? You can secure your own device. Don't like Google collecting information, you can go without Google if you really wanted too. I just see this whole thing as a none issue I guess?
Which leaves you with? What devices aren't made in China or made from components from China? I'm not sure any one device is more secure than another.
Anyone see this story:
Germany Refuses To Ban Huawei, Citing Lack of Real Evidence
This is why open source, and open devices are so important. We need things we can update, and things that can be audited. Some people may argue that makes them vulnerable but I disagree.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is exactly why I unlock my BL and root my phone.
Once that is done, I own it and can do what I want.