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.”
Related
any free tool to crypt voice calls??
Not free but take a look at www.SecureGSM.com
All the best,
Sam.
Just out of interest, why would you want to crypt your calls unless you work in government security or something?
No...Nowdays there are so many ways to compromise privacy that I would be interested in encrypting my communications if possible. It doesn't make me a government worker, security professional, pimp, drug dealer, etc, etc. It just means that I am careful where I reveal my details...
In times past the issue was less of a concern because the Governments didn't have the computing power to hoover up all the comms on copper wire. Times have changed and all my calls travel over IP networks (including GSM, GPRS etc) whether I like it or not. It is not only the government who are the worry (as I am a good citizen) but more the other people who can sniff data on the web.
In the US the senate voted to allow unrestrained wire tapping to the government agencies. In the UK the data gathering services are doing very well (and they also may be private investigators who are largely unregulated and/or criminal gangs).
So personally I see a lot of merit in encrypting my own data (Whether I be talking to my friends and family or with the bank, or buying something over the phone). It gives them a challenge at the very least and usually will be enough to defeat the inquisitive criminal or PI.
In the last two months I have had my ID impersonated 2 times. First someone used my details on the electoral role to apply for loans. The second time they hacked local garages and stole credit/debit card information and PIN numbers.
The world is changing and fraud is soaring so it is now time that we began to be responsible for our own security. Encrypted comms is a small step and one that many companies, groups, and individuals would benefit from.
All the best,
Sam.
PianoSam
Very true. Thank you.
Some of the key sectors we have identified which would benefit from secure communications are:-
Security & enforcement agencies
Government departments
Banks and financial institutions
Corporate business and manufacturing community
Research and R&D industries
Stock and Trade exchanges
Brokers
Legal and Accounting firms
Medical Professionals
Security conscious individuals
Applications requiring high level of security and verification
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.
Samsung allows you to opt out of their mandatory arbitration proceedings which prevent you from joining a class action suit. This must be done within 30 calendar days of purchasing the phone (my reading of the word purchase is explained in the sample letter below). The purchase date is most likely to be the date of delivery though it may be the date you were charged or the date it was shipped. I am not a lawyer and in no way am I representing that what I am providing below is in anyway effective or true nor am I representing that it will not in any way backfire on you. The instructions on page 63 of the warranty manual ask for only four pieces of information. You can send those pieces of information to the email address they provide or you can call them. I used my IMEI, but you can use MEID or serial number.
The email address to send it to is [email protected] or you can call 888-987-4357. This will not affect your limited warranty.
To Whom it May Concern:
As per the instructions on page 63 of the Samsung Galaxy S3 "Product Safety & Warranty Information" booklet, I am hereby providing notice that I am opting out of mandatory arbitration procedure provision and its limitation on class actions. I reserve my right to make use of the procedure and its terms should I choose to, but this notice serves to inform you that I will not be bound by the procedure nor its terms.
This notice comes within thirty (30) days of my purchase and I certify that the following information is correct to the best of my knowledge and should satisfy the notice requirements for opt out. They are correct as of today [date goes here], but I make no representation that my address will not change in the future nor does Samsung require explicitly or implicitly that I notify them of a change of address. Additionally, the date below is the date on which I provided payment to [Carrier] for the device and not the date of the pre-order. Goods were at time of contract fungible and so not identified. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a purchase does not take place until a sale has taken place (UCC 1-201); a sale does not take place until title has passed to the buyer (UCC 2-106); finally title does not pass until performance has been completed which in this case was when delivery was completed (See UCC 2-406). Even if goods were identified at time of shipment by [carrier], this email will still be received within thirty (30) days of purchase under the law. The prior information regarding the law is not provided as advice nor is it necessarily an accurate representation of the law of every state or even my own. It is provided as evidence of my own understanding of the terms at this time and why I have put down the date below that I have. I do not certify that I will never take a contrary position in court or arbitration.
A) Name and Address:
B) Date of Purchase:
C) Product Name and or Model: [Color] Samsung Galaxy S III for [wireless provider] (16 gigabyte edition)
D) IMEI:
Please alert me if you object to anything stated above, but in no way should your objection to anything stated above serve as sufficient to reject my notice that I am opting out to the fullest degree under the law to the mandatory arbitration procedure provision.
Sincerely Yours,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This version assumes you ordered it via shipment from your carrier. Change it appropriately if you ordered from a third party or bought it in store.
If you want to prevent any issues. Just write them with the info in ABCD or call them. I chose to do it this way because I wanted to provide them with notice of the terms I expected. Also note that the UCC article 2 does not apply in Louisiana so I don't know what you guys should put.
I'm doing this so that if there is a class action I can participate. Feel free to spread the word.
Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly does this constitute?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda premium
I am curious as to what this is all about.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda premium
So as is, we can not join a class action lawsuit should one arise as it relates to the GS3....but if we do this opt out, we aren't agreeing to the terms that prevent us from doing so and are free to join if need be?
Is this regarding the verizon locked bootloaders ?
Sent from my SGH-I747M using xda app-developers app
Samsung in the warranty says that you agree to go to arbitration and not court if you want to sue them unless you give them 30 days notice from purchase. The point of this is that should there EVER be a problem with ANYTHING regarding this phone, you will be able to sue them in court as opposed to having to go to mandatory arbitration. The way I wrote it is to say basically "I want to opt out but I want to be able to invoke the arbitration agreement should I choose to do so" Read page 63 of the warranty booklet.
This applies to any carrier though check your booklet as I only have verizon.
the problem with this is there is no active acceptance this piece of paper would never stand in court. no signature no accept button = i threw the manual out the day i got the phone because i never need to read them anyways.
registered mail or a process server is required to have this carry any real effect in a court of law. Also, the suggested letter in the OP has several flaws. Do not use as is.
That said, opting out is a good move.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda premium
Sears Holdings Corporation also has a mandatory arbitration clause that would prevent you from joining a class action if you, as an employee, wanted to sue the company. I'm sure all the corporate giants have this type of wording shoved somewhere you can't easily find it.
phzi said:
registered mail or a process server is required to have this carry any real effect in a court of law. Also, the suggested letter in the OP has several flaws. Do not use as is.
That said, opting out is a good move.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then what would you suggest?
Gadgetz said:
Well then what would you suggest?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
get a life and forget this stupid "Ned Flanders" thread ?
If this device were something that was going to cost me thousands of dollars to fix, or cause me some sort of personal injury I'd bother to opt out...
As it stands, should something happen, either I'm going to be out my initial $250 + contract, which I highly doubt would be the case even in arbitration...
OR.. something horrible will happen such as phones blowing up next to peoples ears or something and "I" was a victim.. in which case, suing won't even be needed.. just the threat/actions of the media alone would make you get whatever you are due in compensation anyway.
Bottom line... no reason to fear arbitration for a $200-500 device.
And of course there's the 'historical' number of times where suing has ever gotten people anything in the realm of cell phones.. I cannot even recall a single case ending up in the courts nor arbitration that was ever in the media or internet. (Yes lawsuits have happened in the past but almost always for fraudlant claims, ala "Microwaving a phone and claiming it blew up")
phzi said:
registered mail or a process server is required to have this carry any real effect in a court of law. Also, the suggested letter in the OP has several flaws. Do not use as is.
That said, opting out is a good move.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course it would hold up. They specified in the agreement that's what they wanted. Notices clauses are included in many types of contracts/licenses. Also if there are flaws, do point them out and don't just be vague.
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.
Huawei---a "spy and security" risk? I love their stuff and think this is BS
https://www.fastcompany.com/40530898/six-u-s-intelligence-agencies-warn-against-using-huawei-phones
Six intelligence officials, including the heads of the CIA, FBI, and NSA, have told the Senate Intelligence Committee that they would not recommend that U.S. citizens use smartphones from the Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE, reports CNBC. As FBI director Chris Wray told the committee:
“We’re deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don’t share our values to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications networks. That provides the capacity to exert pressure or control over our telecommunications infrastructure. It provides the capacity to maliciously modify or steal information. And it provides the capacity to conduct undetected espionage.”
In response to the intelligence officials warnings, a spokesperson for Huawei said:
“Huawei is aware of a range of U.S. government activities seemingly aimed at inhibiting Huawei’s business in the U.S. market. Huawei is trusted by governments and customers in 170 countries worldwide and poses no greater cybersecurity risk than any ICT vendor, sharing as we do common global supply chains and production capabilities.”
Huawei has been trying to enter the U.S. market as of late. One failed attempt saw a partnership with AT&T later called off.
I posted about this a few weeks back when the US deals were cancelled, the mod promptly closed the thread.
I have the phone but no way i'd trust the company.
Went to sign up for HI Care yesterday.
"This feature requires permission to be enabled
(CONTACTS)
I checked permissions after allowing it, it also enabled access to phone in permissions.
Why do you suppose they require that
The Reasoning Is Simple..
Of Course The U.S. Goverment Does Not Want You To Purchase A Device From A Country That May Be Able To Spy On Us...
They'd much more perfer you purchase your devices from a country that has aligned with the United States.
Devices from Samsung & LG.. whose World Headquarters are based in South Korea fit this paradigm.
This way, they would have the option to inject spyware that can spy on you...
Big Brother is ALWAYS watching. :angel:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/14/technology/huawei-intelligence-chiefs/index.html
Not liking this. We have plenty of other options. I shall be strongly considering replacing this device. Might reconsider keeping it if a Resurrection Remix ROM surfaces soon.
I have 2.5 weeks to decide before the Amazon 5eturn period ends.
Why would the Uk, Germany and many other European countries allow Huawei and ZTE on their Telecom's if there was an espionage risk? I mean these are NATO countries. If is good for them, why isn't it good for us? As far as I know, Huawei is one of the biggest provider of telecom equipment. So I get it, they don't want Huawei to be part of the new 5G infrastructure. We do know that our Telecoms lobbied really hard to repeal net neutrality. Who loses?
zener773 said:
Why would the Uk, Germany and many other European countries allow Huawei and ZTE on their Telecom's if there was an espionage risk? I mean these are NATO countries. If is good for them, why isn't it good for us? As far as I know, Huawei is one of the biggest provider of telecom equipment. So I get it, they don't want Huawei to be part of the new 5G infrastructure. We do know that our Telecoms lobbied really hard to repeal net neutrality. Who loses?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When Xiaomi launched itself in India with some attractive budget phones, they faced the same type of criticism that they are stealing data from users but after that everything faded in the background and now it's one of the top selling brands.
I still don't understand as it's quoted above, If it's really that bad then why wouldn't other countries be concerned?? I guess, Recently, Indian govt. Advised that especially govt.officials, Army and such officials should stay away from Chinese Phones though.
I have honor 7X and I love stock/custom Roms. I'm looking to switch to a custom ROM because I guess I have another reason to do so. What do you think guys?
Unless the govt forces a pullout from the market, I think it's just politics. I found this article about Telus/Huawei testing their 5G rollout in Canada. Ihttps://venturebeat.com/2018/02/14/huawei-and-telus-test-fixed-5g-in-homes-paving-way-for-canadian-rollout/amp/
zener773 said:
Unless the govt forces a pullout from the market, I think it's just politics. I found this article about Telus/Huawei testing their 5G rollout in Canada. Ihttps://venturebeat.com/2018/02/14/huawei-and-telus-test-fixed-5g-in-homes-paving-way-for-canadian-rollout/amp/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Personally, cell phones are a huge business and lots of money floating around....which leads to businesses like Apple, Samsung, LG etc left in the dark if they have to compete with a $199 phone...theirs are in the $800 range. What can they do? Somehow persuade the masses that they are a threat on spying on your phone---as if our government does not already do this....I have a strong distrust for our media and the propaganda of our government officials in the "higher up" areas.
Also, if Samsung is spying through your SMART tv I'm sure they would not do it on any other of their products... (SARC)