Related
An interesting article that I came across today; bolded some points that struck me as dangerous grounds ...
Sound Check by Alan Cross
February 12, 2010 12:30 a.m.
Back in November, I wrote about ACTA, the secret anti-counterfeiting trademark agreement involving Canada, the U.S., Mexico, the EU and nine other countries. Representatives have been meeting behind closed doors for two years to hammer out a treaty that will inevitably affect every single person on the Internet.
Yet there has been almost zero transparency. None of the draft texts have been made public and those outside the inner circle are bound by tough non-disclosure agreements.
This doesn’t mean there haven’t been some leaks.
Aside from measures to fight counterfeiting, there have been discussions about a worldwide “three strikes” rule. Accused (not caught, proven or convicted) of file-sharing music three times by an aggrieved rights holder, and you’re banned from the Internet. For life.
Internet service providers and telecoms would be liable for copyright infringements by their users. To avoid prosecution, that means they’ll have to find some way of sniffing through all the data — YOUR data — that passes through their pipes. And even though you may have a legitimate right to, say, ship a music file from point A to point B, there’s the potential for red flags at the ISP. Accused three times (not caught, proven or convicted) and you’re done. Not just with your current ISP, either. They’ll be required by international law to publish your name to an Internet no-fly list that will prevent you from ever having an Internet account in your name ever again.
And it gets better. Within the document is a second called Border Measures. There’s the real possibility that some border guard will have the power to make you prove all those music files on that iPhone in your pocket are, in fact, not pirated. Can’t do it? Bye-bye, iPhone. Oh, and you could be charged and fined.
This is more than just file-sharing for stopping fake Louis Vuitton bags. It’s about privacy, civil liberties, and legitimate use of the Internet for commerce and innovation.
The seventh round of negotiations is underway in Mexico — secretly, of course, partly because U.S. President Barack Obama has declared this an issue of national security. Same thing for the next round in April in New Zealand.
And because this is an international treaty, it’ll just be rubber-stamped into law. No public debate.
Be informed. Read what the Electronic Frontier Foundations says at eff.org/issues/acta.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sources:
http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/com...ifetime-ban-from-the-internet-it-could-happen
http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/comment/article/509570--the-orwellian-plan-to-track-your-music
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/06/02/copyright-bill-clement-montreal.html?ref=rss
http://www.eff.org/issues/acta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
Updates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqE8SuLOQxo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns&annotation_id=annotation_910879&feature=iv
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=210429284986#!/group.php?gid=210429284986&ref=nf
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10467337-38.html
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/your-life-will-some-day-end-acta-will-live-on.ars
http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=d7q9CZNjAmTXtvMz0xI_8sjNmJ6cM
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=6275575&postcount=40
* EDIT *
FYI; the EFF is a good starting point for those who decide they want to do something - they may also be able to recommend an equivalent organization in your country.
thats pretty messed up. if it happens in the us, im sure itll end up in the supreme court and declared unconstitutional. this is way above what the powers the constitution granted to the government. after all, the government needs consent of the people or else its not a democracy anymore.
Unfortunately, since ACTA is considered to be an International treaty, it can be passed into law without public debate.
... and that's just the "tip of the iceberg". All one has to do is imagine the scenarios and since most of the treaty is being kept confidential, we don't know how far the reach and impact of the treaty will be. Here's a few other ongoings that most folks aren't aware of:
Rein In ACTA: Tell Congress to Open the Secret IP Pact
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=420
In The News: Cellular User Privacy at Risk
http://www.eff.org/press/mentions
Control is arriving to internet...
Wow,
It is amazing about this article.
I really hope this won't succeed, as this trespasses the limits of control and privacy.
As next meeting will be here in México, I´ll try to fond out more locally...
Wow, definately hope this is a No Go
If this has any truth to it, yet another reason why i hate obammer
I get the feeling though that for every ISP that followed the no-fly list, another ISP like Google's new high speed internet would let someone on that list connect.
It reminds me of "Home Taping Is Killing Music. And It's Illegal" campaign.
And a opposing campaigns called,
"copyright is killing music - and it's legal"
"Home Taping is Skill in Music"
"Home Taping Is Killing the Music Industry: Killing Ain't Wrong"
Hope this doesn't become a law. If so, we may have to migrate to Iran (where there is no copyright law).
zizou417 said:
I get the feeling though that for every ISP that followed the no-fly list, another ISP like Google's new high speed internet would let someone on that list connect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's say for the sake of argument that this treaty is passed ...
As the majority of services are paid via credit card or pre-authorized bank debit, it would seem to me that the person would never be able to get another Internet service under their true identity. Speculating further, the "no-fly" list would likely contain name, address, location, financial, and possibly other government information that establishes a person's unique identity - passport, birth certificate, etc. Some questions that come to mind:
Would this mean that the person would be banned from using cellular or other dial-up means to connect to the Internet?
Should the person use someone else's identify, would they be exposed to criminal prosecution and would the person who's identity was used be banned as well?
Taking it one step further; let's say some disgruntled person or company decides they want to shutdown a competitor, website, or other person, all they need to do is report the key stakeholder anonymously to the authorities (or governing body) a sufficient number of times so as to exceed the threshold ... and voila, banned! In a matter of a few calls, a person such as the owner of a website could be banned from accessing the Internet therefore taking down their website in the process.
Furthermore, countries could be "strong-armed" into adopting the treaty if they wish to conduct commerce over the Internet with countries that are part of the treaty.
I think, it is less likely that some thing like this treaty coming into existence.
I do not know about other developed countries. But, in developing and underdeveloped countries, virtually everyone uses the internet to share the music,movie,software.... So, if you ban all the people form the internet what business these ISPs and e-commerce people are going to do?
And you know, the major market are these countries due to their population. So, developed countries doesn't want to jeopardize their market.
May be, a stricter law to curb such copyright infringement can be applied. But, I hardly see effectiveness of these laws in developing and underdeveloped countries.
(May be China is more happier to apply such law and ban everyone form the internet. Which it is already doing with different means ).
What a "Brave New World" we live in..
hmmmmm, interesting read. Don't agree with this to be honest, but not much I can really do....... I wonder if this could be applied to spammers
raghu13uk said:
I think, it is less likely that some thing like this treaty coming into existence.
I do not know about other developed countries. But, in developing and underdeveloped countries, virtually everyone uses the internet to share the music,movie,software.... So, if you ban all the people form the internet what business these ISPs and e-commerce people are going to do?
And you know, the major market are these countries due to their population. So, developed countries doesn't want to jeopardize their market.
May be, a stricter law to curb such copyright infringement can be applied. But, I hardly see effectiveness of these laws in developing and underdeveloped countries.
(May be China is more happier to apply such law and ban everyone form the internet. Which it is already doing with different means ).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed; but how does one determine a true copyright violator? And obviously, it won't stop at audio and/or video. And what is the purpose of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) then? Was that act not supposed to be for this purpose? And how many companies/people are aware that the ACTA treaty is in the process of being finalised behind "closed doors"?
Of additional interest is the provision to empower border security such that they can search any/all electronic equipment. As the article points out, this means that no information is confidential. So if one happens to encounter a border security person having a "bad day", one could be faced with confiscation of their cellular phone or laptop as a result of not being able to prove that the information found on the device was legitimately paid for (ex: audio, video, application). Attempting to retrieve a wrongly confiscated item is costly both legally and personally.
Additionally, there are numerous articles on the Internet that already highlight the fact that most authorities have the means to bypass most encryption algorithms so as to extract the contents of hard drives and cellular devices. In some countries, it is even a federal offense to use certain depths of encryption - for the longest time, France only permitted 40-bit encryption.
Imagine this scenario;
You're browsing the Internet while waiting for your flight. You happen to connect to a compromised website which redirects you to several pornographic websites. An announcement over the PA system announces that your flight has been moved to a different gate and you realize that the gate is at the opposite end of the airport.
You close your laptop, stuff it in the bag and rush to the new gate just in time to see that people are boarding the plane. You board the plane, stow you laptop and later during the flight, you turn it on to do some work and then stow it away again forgetting to clear your history and browser cache.
When you arrive at your destination, border security instructs you to provide your electronic devices for scanning. During the scan, they discover the browser cache full of pornographic images.
Now what?
Imagine this other scenario;
What happens if this treaty provides large corporations with the power they require to close down websites that are considered hostile to their revenue or websites that provide information on how circumvent mechanisms that are in their products? And what happens if the treaty empowers the authorities to obtain all of the trace-back information of all of the people who frequented such a website so as to ban/prosecute them?
If they do this, i'm gonna sue someone important!!!
I would NOT want to see this thing passed. It's our internet, and they don't have the right to kick us off of it. Watch this video on the topic here, this one is more likely to happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqE8SuLOQxo
What happened to that law that stated we could use any type of music/media as long as we don't make a profit on it?! this is so wrong imo. Sorry saw this thread and had to join.
I would much rather see tax dollars going to matters of national security, and helping the job market right now, then pay for big expensive servers that dedicate their time to crawling through everyone's internet, filtering out everything that's deemed "bad." What if you have say, a niece or nephew, that comes over to your house frequently and gets on the computer. They in turn download music, or go a a forbidden website, or something stupid like that, more than a few times. Bam! Your banned for life because of your brother or sister's child's mistake? I would be furious.
I can not see this going into effect without a HUGE public uproar. From us, as consumers, but also from the ISP companies. They will start taking HUGE revenue losses because of this.
Oh, and the border filtering... you've GOT to be freakin kidding me, right? Before I say any of this, let me make it perfectly clear that I am no racist. I either love, or hate people based on their personalities and actions. Okay, not a racist? Understood. Okay. Why not, instead of filtering electronic devices through the borders, they protect the borders a little better? I'm all of immigration, let them all come over, if they want, but make them do it the legal way. That's all. If that technology filter is applied at our borders, then I can see a huge uproar from a lot of racists, and non-racists, in the Texas, California areas.
There are way too many holes in this. It'd be like trying to hold water in a mesh container. In it's current state, there's no way this will be effective.
2012: The Year The Internet Ends
This will happen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns&annotation_id=annotation_910879&feature=iv
Badwolve1 said:
If they do this, i'm gonna sue someone important!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You won't be alone, let's make it a Class Action lawsuit!
I'm sure there will be plenty of constitutional lawyers ready to pounce on this one...
I didn't see a post for this elsewhere (though some may recall that I have an exceptional ability to miss the obvious ), and you will not hear about this on the news, and it's barely even being covered in print or online. I'm usually too much of a cynic to bother with this sort of activism but this is a big deal, so please grant me 5 minutes of your time; you won't regret it.
The big deal? The "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA). Well wait now, that doesn't sound so bad. We all download music for free here and there, maybe use an "extended trial" of Photoshop, but we know that piracy is technically stealing...so this can't be that bad, right? Wrong. Horribly wrong.
The fact that no news agency is covering this is absolutely insane. We criticize countries like China and Iran for censorship, but at least they don't attempt to conceal it within a vague anti-piracy bill. It is no exaggeration to say that this is one of the most significant bills to come through congress in the past decade, and most people don't even know it exists; much less that discussion began on it today. Of those that do know about it, half of them don't understand why it's a bad thing because H.R.3261 has such an innocuous name (it is also called the Protect IP Act of 2011 in the Senate). Don't be fooled.
"American Censorship Day" - Information on the Internet Blacklist BillsI urge you to take the time to educate yourself on H.R.3261 "SOPA" and write and/or call your Senators and Congress(wo)men! I guarantee if you spend 10 minutes reading about this, you will understand why I'm using an annoyingly large, bright red font.
The Wikipedia Article has a brief section ("Supporters") that shows--in a nutshell--how some politicians are deceptively framing this as a "pro-jobs" bill, among other pleasant sounding things; this couldn't be further from the truth. This is, in a manner of speaking, trying to apply archaic copyright laws to a 21st century Internet, rather than taking the effort to rewrite the copyright laws to make sense in the modern world.
You can find a lot of information explained very well at "American Censorship Day" website (scroll down past the petition), and I would encourage you to do your own research as well. Sign the petition if you want, but really, it is considerably more effective to call or write (or both!) your representatives.
A few more good links:
"Contacting The Congress" - Easily lookup the names/contact information of your Reps/Senators.
SOPA Wikipedia Article - References - These references link to a variety of websites/articles that are both for and against this bill. I would like to personally point out how most of those in support are entities of a political nature, while those against are largely non-political technology-oriented entities.
Full Text of H.R.3261 [PDF] - A relatively "short" 78 pages.
Hearing Information - House Judiciary Committee - This bill is on "the fastrack," meaning its authors are trying to push it through as quickly as possible...This hearing is where the bill began it's journey today (11/16/11).
I thank you for taking the time to read this; if you choose to reply to this thread, bash me as much as you like, but please keep your responses to each other civil.
Alright, back to rooting my Revo (before doing so is a felony ).
Sincerely,
James
Good stuff the masses don't even realize how important this is
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
Basically when this bill passes we have no freedom of speech on the internets. The US government can block websites hosted on servers outside it's borders. And you can get sued for having a song playing on the radio heard in your video posted online.
jaszek said:
Basically when this bill passes we have no freedom of speech on the internets. The US government can block websites hosted on servers outside it's borders. And you can get sued for having a song playing on the radio heard in your video posted online.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is ridiculous we must stop them!
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
Must stop big brother government before it's too late!
Its getting near time for the guns to come out boys...
Brb, there are strange men in suits at my door....
Sent from my SGH-T959V using XDA App
Great Job was about to post something about this on here but you beat me to it anyway here are some more links to articles,info and petitions:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.html
*
http://americancensorship.org/
http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/*
http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/?referring_akid=a2655379.916925._mXAo4&source=auto-taf
P.S keep spreading the word guys!
I think XDA should censor their logo/ and or have the javascript popup to support it http://americancensorship.org/
I have done it to my website for support purposes. come on guys we need this to be halted! So if you have a website/ blog please join the movement and censor your website for a day!
I guess this is the day when we finally found out for sure that govenments can be bought and paid for by greedy corporations.
You are now no longer being ruled by an elected body, but by a fat-cat in a pin-stripe suit.
This is the new world order i guess.
Very well written. I know quite a bit about this topic, since we will get something called "vorratsdatenspeicherung" where I live (austria). Basically The government logs your internet connection and it logs when and who you call/write a sms/ send an email and where you were by doing that.
Should be published on the portal!
I do what i want, because I can.
THIS IS CRAZY
This has to be one of those interpretation of the law issues though surely? I mean... you can't be prosecuted for lying on a dating profile about your height, weight, age etc. There'd be nobody left on match.com
Mykocorum said:
This has to be one of those interpretation of the law issues though surely? I mean... you can't be prosecuted for lying on a dating profile about your height, weight, age etc. There'd be nobody left on match.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The way the law is written does allow for scenarios like the one you propose. The retort of the politicians is, "We won't ever (ab)use this power for doing stuff like that, never ever." I don't know about you, but that's not too reassuring for me. If it's not abused now by these politicians, it'll be abused later by future politicians. Not to mention the precedent it sets...Once you give the government a little bit of control, it becomes very easy for them to get a lot of control.
Even if this were solely an interpretation of the law issue I'd still be against it, because Congress shouldn't be writing laws that can be so easily misinterpreted.
A link to the full text is up there, I plan on reading it tomorrow.
I totally agree the law should be written so that there is no room for interpretation.. you know if what you are doing is illegal from day one, ignorance is not a defence, but as devils advocate the counter is that you end up with thousands of very specific laws for hundreds of situations whilst occurrences the lawmakers didn't think of at the time are getting through loopholes and running away.
Circumstantially you should really be able to use the end purpose of why you are doing what you are doing as to the criminality of what's going down. I don't think anyone on this board would argue that a 40 year old man pretending to be a 13 year old girl on a forum or website to talk to other teenagers should be made illegal and is a very wrong thing - but who hasn't said they are two inches taller on a dating profile or put their build down as "athletic" rather than "a few extra pounds"
Bear in mind that the UK equivalent to this, the 'Digital Economy Act' was passed into law some time ago with barely a whimper of protest. Just like ProtectIP, it was kept quiet and barely reported on until it was too late. We just woke up one morning to draconian new laws. Again, it was bought and paid for by big media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010
I doubt anything can be done to stop the same happening in the US, but perhaps enough pressure can be brought to bear to force some changes to the act. At least you guys have advanced warning to do something about it.
Edit: Big Content stacks Senate Committee
"US Senators have done their level best to give Big Content the law it wants to basically lock up citizens who might think of piracy or file sharing without having to worry about that pesky thing called constitution. The House Judiciary Committee today held an important hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act but only those witnesses who would not object to the law being invited. This was designed to give the impression that all the witnesses were in favour of the law."
Bump this baby. Also voted for frontpage!
I do what i want, because I can.
DirkGently said:
Bear in mind that the UK equivalent to this, the 'Digital Economy Act' was passed into law some time ago with barely a whimper of protest. Just like ProtectIP, it was kept quiet and barely reported on until it was too late. We just woke up one morning to draconian new laws. Again, it was bought and paid for by big media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010
I doubt anything can be done to stop the same happening in the US, but perhaps enough pressure can be brought to bear to force some changes to the act. At least you guys have advanced warning to do something about it.
Edit: Big Content stacks Senate Committee
"US Senators have done their level best to give Big Content the law it wants to basically lock up citizens who might think of piracy or file sharing without having to worry about that pesky thing called constitution. The House Judiciary Committee today held an important hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act but only those witnesses who would not object to the law being invited. This was designed to give the impression that all the witnesses were in favour of the law."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for posting this...It's absolutely crazy...I'm sure they'll find a way to completely circumvent a public hearing that gives opponents a chance to speak throughout the entire process.
jamRwoo said:
Thanks for posting this...It's absolutely crazy...I'm sure they'll find a way to completely circumvent a public hearing that gives opponents a chance to speak throughout the entire process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As always, the people can have a say.. at the ballot box!
I'm pleased to report that the government that introduced the DEA in the UK, lost in the next election shortly afterwards. (After being in power for thirteen years).
Karma b*tches!
Bumping this due to some developments...
Well, this is finally seeing the light of day and getting coverage by some news agencies; caught these articles on Drudge Report.
I just want to say that I hope Chris Dodd dies in a fire. Slowly. FYI: He's a former Senator spearheading this bill AND the new head of the MPAA. Primarily by attempting to bribe members of Congress. Gotta love that the Hollywood/Record Label lobbyists are getting all the airtime, while the people who actually understand this stuff are being silenced as much as possible.
Not too late to call/write your representatives. You can also share these links with your friends...tweet them, facebook them, reddit them, do whatever. If these links don't scare the living s**t out of you, well...idk...too many benzos perhaps. Feel free to copy this post and use it wherever, if you wish.
All of these articles are great and cover a different aspect (with some overlap) of the consequences of this legislation. Props to The Hill for giving this so much coverage; glad someone's doing it.
---
MPAA Head Chris Dodd on Online Censorship Bill: China's the Model -- http://bit.ly/u7kgXy
"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."
Google chairman says online piracy bill would 'criminalize' the Internet -- http://bit.ly/tRWEnj
"It's not a good thing. I understand the goal of what SOPA and PIPA are trying to do," Schmidt said of the Senate counterpart bill, the Protect IP Act. "Their goal is reasonable, their mechanism is terrible. They should not criminalize the intermediaries. They should go after the people that are violating the law."
Internet piracy bill: A free speech 'kill switch' -- http://bit.ly/tY6o6f
Consider this: Under the proposed legislation all that’s required for government to shutdown a specific website is the mere accusation that the site unlawfully featured copyrighted content. Such an accusation need not be proven – or even accompanied by probable cause. All that an accuser (or competitor) needs to do in order to obtain injunctive relief is point the finger at a website.
Legal expert says online piracy bill is unconstitutional -- http://bit.ly/tNBUDH
"Conceivably, an entire website containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement," Tribe writes. "Such an approach would create severe practical problems for sites with substantial user-generated content, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and for blogs that allow users to post videos, photos, and other materials."
---
God, do I hate politicians.
P.S. For those interested in a more detailed analysis of how this is a flagrant violation of free speech: Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and Supreme Court advocate, wrote a memo detailing how SOPA does exactly that -- http://scr.bi/sFSRBg
Closed:
XDA Forum Rules said:
2.4 Personal attacks, racial, political and/or religious discussions: XDA is a discussion forum about certain mobile phones. Mobile phones are not racial, political, religious or personally offensive, therefore none of these types of discussions are permitted on XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://rt.com/news/apple-patent-transmission-block-408/
It's super lame they are going to do this.
the company says the affected sites are to be mostly cinemas, theaters, concert grounds and similar locations
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who the hell records movies on their phones? Now if I see something at a theater I want a picture of I cant have it just because my phone will think I might be in a movie viewing area? What about all the theaters in malls? No taking pictures in malls because there is a movie theater?!
And concert grounds? They really think they have the right to take our devices capabilities away from us during festivals? Hell I take more pics at festivals than I do any other time!! This pisses me off really bad, its the first step towards the government having total control over all our devices and when we can do what with them. I really thought about putting the swear filter to the test for this post. I am disappoint.
Can't see this going down with the general public....seriously bad move by Apple if it goes ahead....which is good news for android!
slaphead20 said:
which is good news for android!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont see it that way, I think if this goes over it will eventually be required in new phones. But I hope I'm wrong!
WiredPirate said:
I dont see it that way, I think if this goes over it will eventually be required in new phones. But I hope I'm wrong!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But if Apple has a patent on it?!
WiredPirate said:
I dont see it that way, I think if this goes over it will eventually be required in new phones. But I hope I'm wrong!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even if it winds up required (which it wont) there's only one contender with custom Roms that can remove it. I can't seem to remember who though
slaphead20 said:
But if Apple has a patent on it?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol, that would be best for everybody.. Unless it becomes required and manufacturers have to pay Apple to use it by law.
WiredPirate said:
lol, that would be best for everybody.. Unless it becomes required and manufacturers have to pay Apple to use it by law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well if you read the article Apple has indeed patented it, and Samsung aren't going to copy that one if they even the slightest bit of common sense
I just read the article and it's coming across as all kinds of morally disgusting. Imagine police brutality that nobody can record on their phones? Or if nobody could record the pepper spray cop walking around paper spraying students? I am not much for conspiracies but this is setting all kinds of bells off.
063_XOBX said:
I just read the article and it's coming across as all kinds of morally disgusting. Imagine police brutality that nobody can record on their phones? Or if nobody could record the pepper spray cop walking around paper spraying students? I am not much for conspiracies but this is setting all kinds of bells off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Several states do not want you recording the police, I think some have passed laws against it already.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
WiredPirate said:
Several states do not want you recording the police, I think some have passed laws against it already.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Illegal or not if I felt my rights were being violated, I would do anything in my power to record what transpired. If a company worked with police to prevent me from doing that then they obviously don't want my money.
063_XOBX said:
Illegal or not if I felt my rights were being violated, I would do anything in my power to record what transpired.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, and I would too. But the government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force, so your going to get your ass whooped or be locked up for taking that picture. Plus the police will just confiscate your device, so better have it uploading in the background or you will never be able to prove it. And even if you do have the pics they will not be usable in court if the law says you cant take the pics.
Craziness. Also one little tweak for hackers to get their hands on and wreak havoc on iOS users. If it's on the phone it's in the code and in theory anyone with the right knowledge could take advantage of it.
MissionImprobable said:
Craziness. Also one little tweak for hackers to get their hands on and wreak havoc on iOS users. If it's on the phone it's in the code and in theory anyone with the right knowledge could take advantage of it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hadn't even thought about that. Hahaha, sucks for them.
WiredPirate said:
I agree, and I would too. But the government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force, so your going to get your ass whooped or be locked up for taking that picture. Plus the police will just confiscate your device, so better have it uploading in the background or you will never be able to prove it. And even if you do have the pics they will not be usable in court if the law says you cant take the pics.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't matter if they're applicable in court. Groups like the ACLU would have my back on it and I would spare no expense (even beyond support from any groups/organizations that supported me) in making it into a PR nightmare for everyone involved. Just look at the Rodney King trial. He was involved in a high speed chase while driving with a blood alcohol around .19 and wound up being front and center in one of the biggest civil rights cases of the decade. Public perception has a lot more sway over how things are handled than facts.
I just want to clarify that I'm not belittling what Mr.King had to go through, just pointing out that illegal or not, the Police need to be accountable for their actions.
063_XOBX said:
It doesn't matter if they're applicable in court. Groups like the ACLU would have my back on it and I would spare no expense (even beyond support from any groups/organizations that supported me) in making it into a PR nightmare for everyone involved. Just look at the Rodney King trial. He was involved in a high speed chase while driving with a blood alcohol around .19 and wound up being front and center in one of the biggest civil rights cases of the decade. Public perception has a lot more sway over how things are handled than facts.
I just want to clarify that I'm not belittling what Mr.King had to go through, just pointing out that illegal or not, the Police need to be accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, I hope it doesn't come to that though.
This just in, this just in: Apple sucks! Back to you, Jan.
063_XOBX said:
It doesn't matter if they're applicable in court. Groups like the ACLU would have my back on it and I would spare no expense (even beyond support from any groups/organizations that supported me) in making it into a PR nightmare for everyone involved. Just look at the Rodney King trial. He was involved in a high speed chase while driving with a blood alcohol around .19 and wound up being front and center in one of the biggest civil rights cases of the decade. Public perception has a lot more sway over how things are handled than facts.
I just want to clarify that I'm not belittling what Mr.King had to go through, just pointing out that illegal or not, the Police need to be accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And it's okay if you did belittle him. The dude was a piece of crap through and through. It was just the excuse LA needed so the animals could come out and riot, rape, pillage, and murder. You're very right about public perception. The media in all its glory never lets a crisis go to waste. Most police "brutality" videos never show the whole scene/situation from stop to finish. I also wager to say that police brutality occurs at a much smaller rate than what the public "perceives" to take place. Not to mention look at the statistics of how many law enforcement officers exist in the U.S. then compare that to the actual, honest to goodness, police brutality incidents and I bet it's less than 0.5%.
Are there piece of **** cops out there? Yes. But I don't see anyone firing politicians these days for royally ****ing up your life. I don't see any media people losing their job for blatantly swaying public perception and falsifying the news and often times just short of inciting riots.
But hey I'm just a little guy in the DOJ who calls it like he sees it and may have wrote a few thesis papers on police corruption and brutality.
I have no problem with being filmed while on the job. My problem is where you take a snippet of an escalated situation to portray me as going beyond my duties as a law enforcement officer and painting me as a bad guy. More so, law enforcement deals with the worst of the worst on a daily basis. We try to do our jobs to the extent that the law allows while also trying to keep the public happy. We are not here to serve you. (IMHO), nor protect you. Exercise your 2nd amendment right for that. We are here to separate the good from evil before you have to.
Each day I'm tasked with waiting for someone to push my adrenaline on overload, knowing today, could be the day, I go meet my maker. I also have to remember that I represent the agency I work for, and public eyes are always watching. I also remember that no matter how much an individual tries to do harm to me verbally or physically I must act in a manner accordingly to how I've been trained and know when to never go above the needed use of force.
While you may sit there and belittle me, I have to push that aside when you call me to come help, assist, save you from whatever danger came your way. In return I ask that you, from one human being to another, always remember that I too make mistakes. That at any point in time I could be sued, my family could be in danger, or any of us could be killed, all because I had a SPLIT SECOND to make a decision on how to react to a highly stressful and downright pants ****ting situation, because you, John Q Public, along with the law said I must follow my duties of removing bad guy A from the streets.
So I ask you, the next time you see a "police brutality" video streaming all over the web or media, please be sure you have all the facts before you cast your first stone. Put yourself in that officer's shoes from start to finish.
Also you as a citizen, it is you duty to know your rights, as a citizen. Use them if you find an over-zealous "authoritative" figure encroaching them. Be polite, be courteous, and be right. You ask the same of us.
So here's some facts. Law enforcement officers have the highest divorce rates out of any profession in the nation. We also have the highest suicide rates. The average life expectancy of a law enforcement officer is 57 years of age. Coincidentally that is also the maximum age allowed before mandatory retirement in the DOJ. Now ask yourself.....what do these tidbits tell you?
ETA: And some tidbits about me. I think the war on drugs is a waste of time and money. I think Fast & Furious goes all the way to the top of the administration and they should all be in prison. I'm neither democrat nor republican. I do not support socialism. I fully support the 2nd amendment and believe every citizen has a natural born right to carry a weapon. I do not think all prison inmates are guilty. I do think Washington DC needs a reset button. I support the military and the war on terror. I do think Iraq was somewhat of a mistake. I do think the current police state has gone too militarized and should be tamed. I like to think we as a nation can do anything we want, but realize that more and more this becomes a nation of sheep or people that don't concern themselves with the things they should. I think reality TV has ruined 51% of the current population.
And as much as I love technology and Android, I think smartphones have set people's social skills back decades, if not centuries.
got556 said:
And it's okay if you did belittle him. The dude was a piece of crap through and through. It was just the excuse LA needed so the animals could come out and riot, rape, pillage, and murder. You're very right about public perception. The media in all its glory never lets a crisis go to waste. Most police "brutality" videos never show the whole scene/situation from stop to finish. I also wager to say that police brutality occurs at a much smaller rate than what the public "perceives" to take place. Not to mention look at the statistics of how many law enforcement officers exist in the U.S. then compare that to the actual, honest to goodness, police brutality incidents and I bet it's less than 0.5%.
Are there piece of **** cops out there? Yes. But I don't see anyone firing politicians these days for royally ****ing up your life. I don't see any media people losing their job for blatantly swaying public perception and falsifying the news and often times just short of inciting riots.
But hey I'm just a little guy in the DOJ who calls it like he sees it and may have wrote a few thesis papers on police corruption and brutality.
I have no problem with being filmed while on the job. My problem is where you take a snippet of an escalated situation to portray me as going beyond my duties as a law enforcement officer and painting me as a bad guy. More so, law enforcement deals with the worst of the worst on a daily basis. We try to do our jobs to the extent that the law allows while also trying to keep the public happy. We are not here to serve you. (IMHO), nor protect you. Exercise your 2nd amendment right for that. We are here to separate the good from evil before you have to.
Each day I'm tasked with waiting for someone to push my adrenaline on overload, knowing today, could be the day, I go meet my maker. I also have to remember that I represent the agency I work for, and public eyes are always watching. I also remember that no matter how much an individual tries to do harm to me verbally or physically I must act in a manner accordingly to how I've been trained and know when to never go above the needed use of force.
While you may sit there and belittle me, I have to push that aside when you call me to come help, assist, save you from whatever danger came your way. In return I ask that you, from one human being to another, always remember that I too make mistakes. That at any point in time I could be sued, my family could be in danger, or any of us could be killed, all because I had a SPLIT SECOND to make a decision on how to react to a highly stressful and downright pants ****ting situation, because you, John Q Public, along with the law said I must follow my duties of removing bad guy A from the streets.
So I ask you, the next time you see a "police brutality" video streaming all over the web or media, please be sure you have all the facts before you cast your first stone. Put yourself in that officer's shoes from start to finish.
Also you as a citizen, it is you duty to know your rights, as a citizen. Use them if you find an over-zealous "authoritative" figure encroaching them. Be polite, be courteous, and be right. You ask the same of us.
So here's some facts. Law enforcement officers have the highest divorce rates out of any profession in the nation. We also have the highest suicide rates. The average life expectancy of a law enforcement officer is 57 years of age. Coincidentally that is also the maximum age allowed before mandatory retirement in the DOJ. Now ask yourself.....what do these tidbits tell you?
ETA: And some tidbits about me. I think the war on drugs is a waste of time and money. I think Fast & Furious goes all the way to the top of the administration and they should all be in prison. I'm neither democrat nor republican. I do not support socialism. I fully support the 2nd amendment and believe every citizen has a natural born right to carry a weapon. I do not think all prison inmates are guilty. I do think Washington DC needs a reset button. I support the military and the war on terror. I do think Iraq was somewhat of a mistake. I do think the current police state has gone too militarized and should be tamed. I like to think we as a nation can do anything we want, but realize that more and more this becomes a nation of sheep or people that don't concern themselves with the things they should. I think reality TV has ruined 51% of the current population.
And as much as I love technology and Android, I think smartphones have set people's social skills back decades, if not centuries.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
:good:
got556 said:
And it's okay if you did belittle him. The dude was a piece of crap through and through. It was just the excuse LA needed so the animals could come out and riot, rape, pillage, and murder. You're very right about public perception. The media in all its glory never lets a crisis go to waste. Most police "brutality" videos never show the whole scene/situation from stop to finish. I also wager to say that police brutality occurs at a much smaller rate than what the public "perceives" to take place. Not to mention look at the statistics of how many law enforcement officers exist in the U.S. then compare that to the actual, honest to goodness, police brutality incidents and I bet it's less than 0.5%.
Are there piece of **** cops out there? Yes. But I don't see anyone firing politicians these days for royally ****ing up your life. I don't see any media people losing their job for blatantly swaying public perception and falsifying the news and often times just short of inciting riots.
But hey I'm just a little guy in the DOJ who calls it like he sees it and may have wrote a few thesis papers on police corruption and brutality.
I have no problem with being filmed while on the job. My problem is where you take a snippet of an escalated situation to portray me as going beyond my duties as a law enforcement officer and painting me as a bad guy. More so, law enforcement deals with the worst of the worst on a daily basis. We try to do our jobs to the extent that the law allows while also trying to keep the public happy. We are not here to serve you. (IMHO), nor protect you. Exercise your 2nd amendment right for that. We are here to separate the good from evil before you have to.
Each day I'm tasked with waiting for someone to push my adrenaline on overload, knowing today, could be the day, I go meet my maker. I also have to remember that I represent the agency I work for, and public eyes are always watching. I also remember that no matter how much an individual tries to do harm to me verbally or physically I must act in a manner accordingly to how I've been trained and know when to never go above the needed use of force.
While you may sit there and belittle me, I have to push that aside when you call me to come help, assist, save you from whatever danger came your way. In return I ask that you, from one human being to another, always remember that I too make mistakes. That at any point in time I could be sued, my family could be in danger, or any of us could be killed, all because I had a SPLIT SECOND to make a decision on how to react to a highly stressful and downright pants ****ting situation, because you, John Q Public, along with the law said I must follow my duties of removing bad guy A from the streets.
So I ask you, the next time you see a "police brutality" video streaming all over the web or media, please be sure you have all the facts before you cast your first stone. Put yourself in that officer's shoes from start to finish.
Also you as a citizen, it is you duty to know your rights, as a citizen. Use them if you find an over-zealous "authoritative" figure encroaching them. Be polite, be courteous, and be right. You ask the same of us.
So here's some facts. Law enforcement officers have the highest divorce rates out of any profession in the nation. We also have the highest suicide rates. The average life expectancy of a law enforcement officer is 57 years of age. Coincidentally that is also the maximum age allowed before mandatory retirement in the DOJ. Now ask yourself.....what do these tidbits tell you?
ETA: And some tidbits about me. I think the war on drugs is a waste of time and money. I think Fast & Furious goes all the way to the top of the administration and they should all be in prison. I'm neither democrat nor republican. I do not support socialism. I fully support the 2nd amendment and believe every citizen has a natural born right to carry a weapon. I do not think all prison inmates are guilty. I do think Washington DC needs a reset button. I support the military and the war on terror. I do think Iraq was somewhat of a mistake. I do think the current police state has gone too militarized and should be tamed. I like to think we as a nation can do anything we want, but realize that more and more this becomes a nation of sheep or people that don't concern themselves with the things they should. I think reality TV has ruined 51% of the current population.
And as much as I love technology and Android, I think smartphones have set people's social skills back decades, if not centuries.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would never make an unfounded claim about the Police, especially not one about Police brutality. I believe that like all people (they're only human) they are mostly good. However if for even a second I believe that my rights are being encroached upon I will not hesitate to use any resource I can, media included, to bring it to light. Most "controversies" are a bunch of hype and not having all the facts, but if even 1/10th of a percent are real they need to be brought to light. Any time a person is given elevated authority over another there needs to be some kind of check to keep them in line. The media isn't perfect, but it's the closest thing we have to a semblance of something that "watches those who watch over us".
This might be a silly question, I've not used Samsung in a long time, last one was the S2 haha.....but is it ever going to be possible to root and/or install TWRP on this device without breaking OTA updates? I love rooting my devices and using custom ROMs, I still have need for root access, but to be honest this phone I would be happy keeping as close to stock as possible, I could live without TWRP, but will we ever get root without losing the ability to OTA update? If not then I'll just go custom when the urge becomes too strong haha.
Oh and I have the exynos version.
beta546 said:
This might be a silly question, I've not used Samsung in a long time, last one was the S2 haha.....but is it ever going to be possible to root and/or install TWRP on this device without breaking OTA updates? I love rooting my devices and using custom ROMs, I still have need for root access, but to be honest this phone I would be happy keeping as close to stock as possible, I could live without TWRP, but will we ever get root without losing the ability to OTA update? If not then I'll just go custom when the urge becomes too strong haha.
Oh and I have the exynos version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
I too see a growing need for root elevation without destroying core security patch options. Either from stock, or with an aptitude like package management used by ROM creators, so you can even patch android files sooner than Samsung normally would. Because as it stands, the way we root now makes android a security disaster.
In essence this is a design failure by google and android. How could they expect users to be happy with non-configurable systems? That's why we don't have Apple devices, so we can config and alter whenever we would want to. Sigh.. Closed source for android is such a PITA. And so slow with patches..
?
jult said:
+1
I too see a growing need for root elevation without destroying core security patch options. Either from stock, or with an aptitude like package management used by ROM creators, so you can even patch android files sooner than Samsung normally would. Because as it stands, the way we root now makes android a security disaster.
In essence this is a design failure by google and android. How could they expect users to be happy with non-configurable systems? That's why we don't have Apple devices, so we can config and alter whenever we would want to. Sigh.. Closed source for android is such a PITA. And so slow with patches..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, people like Samsung who just want to lock down their devices for whatever reason is just getting a bit extreme now. I don't think it's Google to blame though as android is easily rooted in general, it's manufacturers like Samsung that make you jump through hoops to do it. And yes it's exactly why we don't have iPhones haha. I believe every android device should come with a setting in developer options that just activates root with a disclaimer.....take my warranty, I don't care in the slightest, but don't cripple my device that I payed £720 for that is now my property, just because I want to use some of the most useful features and app designed to work with root. After reading through these forums I see Samsung seem more like apple than ever. I mean God the guide to install a custom ROM is crazy haha, perfectly doable, but compared to my le max 2 which was just, plug your phone in, push this through ADB, then flash this zip and you're done, so simple.
beta546 said:
I agree, people like Samsung who just want to lock down their devices for whatever reason is just getting a bit extreme now. I don't think it's Google to blame though as android is easily rooted in general, it's manufacturers like Samsung that make you jump through hoops to do it. And yes it's exactly why we don't have iPhones haha. I believe every android device should come with a setting in developer options that just activates root with a disclaimer.....take my warranty, I don't care in the slightest, but don't cripple my device that I payed £720 for that is now my property, just because I want to use some of the most useful features and app designed to work with root. After reading through these forums I see Samsung seem more like apple than ever. I mean God the guide to install a custom ROM is crazy haha, perfectly doable, but compared to my le max 2 which was just, plug your phone in, push this through ADB, then flash this zip and you're done, so simple.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The most important part of your post is often missed by a lot of people.
"lock down their devices for whatever reason..."
No one thinks about the reason it seems. As much as it sucks for folks on XDA, the folks that come to XDA don't think about all of the people that DO NOT come to XDA, or why a device manufacturer that makes their devices primarily for the Corporate world, wouldn't want to let their devices be unlocked by the small amount of XDA folks that buy them.
And before anyone says "the exynos is unlockable!" Remember the Exynos version is international, not USA. There's are so much more benefits to Samsung keeping the USA devices locked than there are downsides. I work for a small corporate company of about 300 employees and I am not allowed to have a device with the bootloader unlocked, period. Why? I don't even know, and I am in the tech field. Each company has their rules and such. Imagine how much contracts Samsung could have with corporations out there for their devices. We used to have one, and look at how small we are. We don't have one anymore because it's cheaper to just have employees front the device cost instead of the company paying for devices! Lame I know. I fought against it but lost.
As far as the original question goes, no, you will not be able to keep OTA and root at the same time. Not for the way OTA are setup, and rooting works.
Jammol said:
As far as the original question goes, no, you will not be able to keep OTA and root at the same time. Not for the way OTA are setup, and rooting works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now. You mean. It can (and should) change. The way the android permission model is designed, is totally corporate-based, not user-friendly at all. And if Samsung would stay on top of security-patches and push updates (like you have with Win10 now, which are still totally under the user's control without having to 'root' anything), that would be fine, but time and again these smartphone manufacturers have proven to stop giving a hoot after they've released a new model, if they even cared at all about security patching in time, because they apparently really don't. Not enough anyway. If they would, we'd already be running Android 9 on our Notes by now.
Jammol said:
The most important part of your post is often missed by a lot of people.
"lock down their devices for whatever reason..."
No one thinks about the reason it seems. As much as it sucks for folks on XDA, the folks that come to XDA don't think about all of the people that DO NOT come to XDA, or why a device manufacturer that makes their devices primarily for the Corporate world, wouldn't want to let their devices be unlocked by the small amount of XDA folks that buy them.
And before anyone says "the exynos is unlockable!" Remember the Exynos version is international, not USA. There's are so much more benefits to Samsung keeping the USA devices locked than there are downsides. I work for a small corporate company of about 300 employees and I am not allowed to have a device with the bootloader unlocked, period. Why? I don't even know, and I am in the tech field. Each company has their rules and such. Imagine how much contracts Samsung could have with corporations out there for their devices. We used to have one, and look at how small we are. We don't have one anymore because it's cheaper to just have employees front the device cost instead of the company paying for devices! Lame I know. I fought against it but lost.
As far as the original question goes, no, you will not be able to keep OTA and root at the same time. Not for the way OTA are setup, and rooting works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That makes a lot of sense really, obviously there are going to be businesses and companies and such that wpild rely on their workers devices being as secure as possible, for multiple reasons. But again that's not really up to Samsung to decide really, now I agree that although there are a huge number of people that want to modify their devices in various ways, but on the grand scale it's a relatively low percentage of the market. Which is why I think it should always be an option, that way they cater to everyone. If a company has a requirement that all their employees devices stay locked down, they simply don't allow it, and if an employee does it regardless then the consequences would be their own. I guess Samsung could bake in the setting, but with an option at first boot as to leave the ability to unlock intact, or to choose to permanently remove any option of ever being able to do it. That way when a company bought the phones they could lock them all down before handing them out. But in the scenario where people must purchase their own device, they then would have to decide whether to follow company policy, or unlock the phone and risk potentially losing their job at worst because of it....that's just what I think really, but I'm in no way some business or manufacturing giant haha, there will be multiple arguments for and against this entire scenario.
And also thanks for the answer ? It was as I suspected, but always worth an ask.
Voiding the Warranty for unrelated modifications is illegal and there is a better way
It seems we are all getting used to the arrogance and impertinence ...
... with which manufacturers and telephone service operators want to dictate what we do with our property. Let us not forget that «this will void your warranty», though common practice, is not in accordance with current legislation.
Modifications to devices should be protected under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unless the modification caused the damage you're asking the manufacturer to repair. Manufacturers threatening to void warranties for rooting, even when they have no legal right to do so, is nothing but bullying, banking on the fact that most people are not feeling confident about legal battles with corporations for which time and money are of no consequence. It is about time that reviews took the aspect of rooting/customization friendliness into consideration, so that manufacturers like OnePlus and HTC receive the credit they deserve for being more lenient toward rooting and still receiving updates. If technology journalists pointed this aspect out in their reviews, companies might come to their senses. Being able to use some apps that can do what they do only with Root access is more important than yet another MegaPixel on the camera -- if the other manufacturers do not drop the ball yet again, by dumbing down their phone instead of building the best device they possibly can, this year's phone purchase will be from a brand that is user friendly and provides OTA updates even on customised devices.
As for the «security» fairytale, that's often the last aspect that manufacturers care about, skipping security patches even after exploits have been detected. By the way: if some guy with a mobile phone could really bring down or disturb an operator's network, the operator doesn't deserve better. Most people do not root because they are devious masterminds from a Bond movie who try to mess up their kernels or bring down the global communication networks, but because they want to customize the looks of devices to their liking, fix some flaws or get some software to work. Very few people would keep rooting if manufacturers only guarded their kernels against overclocking beyond what the phone can endure and operators blocked what could disrupt the network -- if they did that and only that, hardly anyone would complain or root.
Security is obviously not what it's really all about. On my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE 9, Amazon Shopping, Fakecrook, LinkedIn and a whole bunch of other garbage came pre-installed as system apps that can be disabled but not uninstalled. Like everything imposed on us by Google, these companies have no interest in enhancing their customers' security and privacy, but exactly the opposite, grab as much sensitive information about us as they possibly can and sell it to whoever is interested and willing to pay for it.
On a Windows PC, I can do most things I want to do if I really have to, via editing the Windows Registry if need be and turning off User Access Control (UAC) when the unnecessary extra-click got on my nerves. Millions of people are and have been doing the same without upsetting the space-time-continuum, and corporations can restrict whatever they want to restrict if there is an administrator to do it. In most cases, however, there is not, because after all, it's a Personal Computer (PC), managed by the user at home. If we pay for something -- and quite handsomely so -- we own it, consequently it should be us who, after a warning that can be turned off with a checkmark, have the final say. So far, the corporate world seems to thrive quite nicely with the kind of approach to security that MS Windows is taking, despite surely being the first and loudest ones to complain if there were any real and relevant problems that seriously threaten their dayly operations.
Mobile phone manufacturers and operators use «security» as an excuse to restrict what the owners of those expensive little toys can do, just like governments proclaim «terrorism» as the excuse for spying on and controlling their own populations by grabbing ever more power with authorizing laws that undermine constitutional civil liberties. In our societies, it is to keep track on any possible threats to the Status Quo that might be caused by a shift of public opinion if the media -- these days large corporations themselves -- did not distract us with polemics, sports and celebrity BS, but reported on and kept in focus issues such as ecology, human overpopulation, inequality, tax evasion, poverty, injustice, corruption, lobbyism and so on. In the mobile phone world, they do it to milk us for banalities like boot animations, wallpapers, type fonts, themes, icons and whatever we would like to do to make our phones look nicer. Under Windows, buy a shareware CD with 10,000 fonts, copy the 20 or 30 you like into the respective system folder -- done. On Android, they want to milk us for every bit they can and that's the real motivation for all the bull****, harassment, hoops and loops they make us jump through.
If companies were really interested in user privacy rights and security, the first thing that would be forbidden were advertisements, because a lot of sh.t can come in through those backdoors. Second, why does Apple not allow antivirii and firewalls if security is such a concern? Why are owners of devices with a custom recovery or root being punished by exclusion from OTA updates, given that these updates are supposed to improve stability and security? That's just bollocks and distraction to ram as much advertising down our throat, rip us off for every boot animation, wallpaper, theme, icon or type font that we have tons of lying around on our hard drive, and to obtain as much data from us as possible, in order to know and track what we buy, think, believe, suffer from, like, dislike or do in any place at any at any time.
Apart from a couple of absolute geeks and nerds, nobody would root their phones if adaptation and customization of our phones was easily possible, i.e. if everything except things that could irrevocably damage hardware or networks could be easily modified as we please. The introduction of a/b partition slots for Seamless Updates paved the way for preventing irreparable accidents and could easily be expanded and improved, together with a better design of the user interface and user experience to make the process more comprehensible for average users. Yet, most companies did not even implement a/b partitions, although this approach makes accidents and mistakes when playing around with the device «non-lethal» and saves the Customer Service costs that companies so often cite as the second excuse and pretext for the arrogance with which they keep and exert control over other people's property. With each new generation of phones and every new version of operating systems, the restrictions are getting worse, the options for access and harmless modification less, and that unacceptable trend needs to stop.
If companies want to disencourage people from rooting their phones, they need to stop bombarding us with intrusive ads, stop spying and imposing bloatware and replace it with useful tool bundles (Titanium Backup, decent file managers, cleaners, system tools and the like). It is okay to guard and firewall the indispensable and risky parts (hardware overclocking, network integrity), but only block those irreparable areas while opening up the rest for users to customise to their hearts content, making it as comfortable, easy and intuitive as possible to copy, paste, move and configure everything else between phone and PC. If something goes wrong while doing so, make sure that a system restore point and booting into the alternative partition means that there's no harm, no foul and therefore no problem and no service cost.
Instead of wasting our time hunting for patched partiton files, info on how to get out of bootloops, etc., users could then enjoy and be happier with our phone instead of fixing its shortcomings or, dare I say it, do something fun and entertaining outside while the snow is fresh or the sun is shining.
.
Qui Peccavit said:
It seems we are all getting used to the arrogance and impertinence ...
... with which manufacturers and telephone service operators want to dictate what we do with our property. Let us not forget that «this will void your warranty», though common practice, is not in accordance with current legislation.
Modifications to devices should be protected under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unless the modification caused the damage you're asking the manufacturer to repair. Manufacturers threatening to void warranties for rooting, even when they have no legal right to do so, is nothing but bullying, banking on the fact that most people are not feeling confident about legal battles with corporations for which time and money are of no consequence. It is about time that reviews took the aspect of rooting/customization friendliness into consideration, so that manufacturers like OnePlus and HTC receive the credit they deserve for being more lenient toward rooting and still receiving updates. If technology journalists pointed this aspect out in their reviews, companies might come to their senses. Being able to use some apps that can do what they do only with Root access is more important than yet another MegaPixel on the camera -- if the other manufacturers do not drop the ball yet again, by dumbing down their phone instead of building the best device they possibly can, this year's phone purchase will be from a brand that is user friendly and provides OTA updates even on customised devices.
As for the «security» fairytale, that's often the last aspect that manufacturers care about, skipping security patches even after exploits have been detected. By the way: if some guy with a mobile phone could really bring down or disturb an operator's network, the operator doesn't deserve better. Most people do not root because they are devious masterminds from a Bond movie who try to mess up their kernels or bring down the global communication networks, but because they want to customize the looks of devices to their liking, fix some flaws or get some software to work. Very few people would keep rooting if manufacturers only guarded their kernels against overclocking beyond what the phone can endure and operators blocked what could disrupt the network -- if they did that and only that, hardly anyone would complain or root.
Security is obviously not what it's really all about. On my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE 9, Amazon Shopping, Fakecrook, LinkedIn and a whole bunch of other garbage came pre-installed as system apps that can be disabled but not uninstalled. Like everything imposed on us by Google, these companies have no interest in enhancing their customers' security and privacy, but exactly the opposite, grab as much sensitive information about us as they possibly can and sell it to whoever is interested and willing to pay for it.
On a Windows PC, I can do most things I want to do if I really have to, via editing the Windows Registry if need be and turning off User Access Control (UAC) when the unnecessary extra-click got on my nerves. Millions of people are and have been doing the same without upsetting the space-time-continuum, and corporations can restrict whatever they want to restrict if there is an administrator to do it. In most cases, however, there is not, because after all, it's a Personal Computer (PC), managed by the user at home. If we pay for something -- and quite handsomely so -- we own it, consequently it should be us who, after a warning that can be turned off with a checkmark, have the final say. So far, the corporate world seems to thrive quite nicely with the kind of approach to security that MS Windows is taking, despite surely being the first and loudest ones to complain if there were any real and relevant problems that seriously threaten their dayly operations.
Mobile phone manufacturers and operators use «security» as an excuse to restrict what the owners of those expensive little toys can do, just like governments proclaim «terrorism» as the excuse for spying on and controlling their own populations by grabbing ever more power with authorizing laws that undermine constitutional civil liberties. In our societies, it is to keep track on any possible threats to the Status Quo that might be caused by a shift of public opinion if the media -- these days large corporations themselves -- did not distract us with polemics, sports and celebrity BS, but reported on and kept in focus issues such as ecology, human overpopulation, inequality, tax evasion, poverty, injustice, corruption, lobbyism and so on. In the mobile phone world, they do it to milk us for banalities like boot animations, wallpapers, type fonts, themes, icons and whatever we would like to do to make our phones look nicer. Under Windows, buy a shareware CD with 10,000 fonts, copy the 20 or 30 you like into the respective system folder -- done. On Android, they want to milk us for every bit they can and that's the real motivation for all the bull****, harassment, hoops and loops they make us jump through.
If companies were really interested in user privacy rights and security, the first thing that would be forbidden were advertisements, because a lot of sh.t can come in through those backdoors. Second, why does Apple not allow antivirii and firewalls if security is such a concern? Why are owners of devices with a custom recovery or root being punished by exclusion from OTA updates, given that these updates are supposed to improve stability and security? That's just bollocks and distraction to ram as much advertising down our throat, rip us off for every boot animation, wallpaper, theme, icon or type font that we have tons of lying around on our hard drive, and to obtain as much data from us as possible, in order to know and track what we buy, think, believe, suffer from, like, dislike or do in any place at any at any time.
Apart from a couple of absolute geeks and nerds, nobody would root their phones if adaptation and customization of our phones was easily possible, i.e. if everything except things that could irrevocably damage hardware or networks could be easily modified as we please. The introduction of a/b partition slots for Seamless Updates paved the way for preventing irreparable accidents and could easily be expanded and improved, together with a better design of the user interface and user experience to make the process more comprehensible for average users. Yet, most companies did not even implement a/b partitions, although this approach makes accidents and mistakes when playing around with the device «non-lethal» and saves the Customer Service costs that companies so often cite as the second excuse and pretext for the arrogance with which they keep and exert control over other people's property. With each new generation of phones and every new version of operating systems, the restrictions are getting worse, the options for access and harmless modification less, and that unacceptable trend needs to stop.
If companies want to disencourage people from rooting their phones, they need to stop bombarding us with intrusive ads, stop spying and imposing bloatware and replace it with useful tool bundles (Titanium Backup, decent file managers, cleaners, system tools and the like). It is okay to guard and firewall the indispensable and risky parts (hardware overclocking, network integrity), but only block those irreparable areas while opening up the rest for users to customise to their hearts content, making it as comfortable, easy and intuitive as possible to copy, paste, move and configure everything else between phone and PC. If something goes wrong while doing so, make sure that a system restore point and booting into the alternative partition means that there's no harm, no foul and therefore no problem and no service cost.
Instead of wasting our time hunting for patched partiton files, info on how to get out of bootloops, etc., users could then enjoy and be happier with our phone instead of fixing its shortcomings or, dare I say it, do something fun and entertaining outside while the snow is fresh or the sun is shining.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best post I've read in the recent years. Well done!
PS: Love the Angola flag.
Information available on Reddit seem to show that several of Motorola's phones have not had any security patch levels applied since after January. It also seems like as long as the known security issues are just documented as theoretically possible that Lenovo/Motorola seem happy to keep reiterating the same lie that they make security a "top priority" while not actually addressing these problems. It is also frustrating that Motorola seems unwilling to release a version of the Motorola One that is intended to be used in the USA.
It would be nice to have a proof of concept repository similar to Rapid7's metasploit but for the Motorola G-series. Please keep in mind, I am *NOT* talking about violating responsible disclosure. This would not include any unpatched vulnerabilities. Instead, this would be known issues were AOSP has provided fixes to Motorola for over a month and Motorola has selected to still notify it's customers that their device is "up to date" without having addressed the known issues.
I believe only by showing customers what is possible with this exploits can enough pressure be put on Lenovo/Motorola to make "top priority" mean actual action instead of empty posturing.
However, based on my careful reading of the XDA ToS, it seems anything that facilitate the creation of malicious content is not allowed. This seems vaguely worded enough to exclude all proof of concept exploit discussion. But several of the issues left unaddressed by Motorola seem to be fairly easy to exploit. So, is XDA really improving the situation or avoiding transparency in favor of shielding Motorola's poor behavior?
It would be really nice if someone could provide some clarification behind the wording of this ToS and XDA's position on vendors that make security a "top priority" leaving months of patches outside of the scope available to customers if the device is to remain under warranty.
This is what I already said.
Motorola is just a retarded company.
I don't know in which universe this is acceptable.
Someone needs to sh*t in a bag and address it at Motorola, so they see what they sell.
The G6 was my last Motof**k phone.
F**k Motorola. F**k Lenovo and f**k all the retards which work in this companies.
I hope the company dies and never sells a f**kphone again.
I completely understand your level of frustration ThisIsRussia but please don't get the thread locked.
If I were to mail something to Motorola to make a statement, it would probably be a finger-print reader attached to swiss cheese. They keep using user facing features to give the illusion of security while leaving the rest of the product full of security holes.
Yeah, sorry I was a little upset because they are always responding with phrases like "soon it will be updated" etc.
Since February. Its May now.
I just don't use Motorola phones anymore and if someone asked me for opinion I didn't recommend Motorola/Lenovo.
They are a bunch of liars. period.
I picked up the g6 on Fi just to have a cheap phone. I thought it was just the Fi version not getting security updates.. luckily I don't keep financials, etc on. Only good as a glorified phone and music streaming device, but for $99?
Not many budget phones get monthly patches on time. None that are under$150 anyways.
$99 or $150 isn't what I was charged for the Moto G6. It was released for a price of $200.
The Federal Trade Commission has fined D-Link, TP-Link and ASUS for marketing *BUDGET* wireless routers that sold for much less than $200 or $150 or $99 for misrepresenting their products as providing security while "failing to take reasonable steps to secure."
According to David Kleidermacher, Google's head of security for Android, ""Android security made a significant leap forward in 2017 and many of our protections now lead the industry" and also "as Android security has matured, it has become more difficult and expensive for attackers to find high severity exploits."
Google owned Motorola, they should have been able to established policies and procedures for Motorola to make good on David Kleidermacher's statements. Or they should have made establishing those part of terms of the sale to Lenovo.
Lenovo and Motorola also market themselves as providing security even for budget devices with statements as:
* "Prevent unauthorized access with secure biometrics"
* "keeping your devices and systems secure and your digital privacy intact is a top priority"
At no point do they put any exclusionary statement such as "but only if it is not a budget device."
Also, while Motorola One is also a budget device, it does get more frequent updates. However, the Moto One is clearly not intended for purchase in the USA market and is missing support for several LTE bands.
And the Moto G6 is supposed to be a Treble/GSI device were any effort Motorola put into providing updates to flagship GSI devices should also apply to being able to also update the G6 for almost no additional effort.
So, I reject the claim no one should expect Feb 2019 security updates by May 2019 because it is simply a budget device.
Then let's also look at the claim that if financials or similar are not stored directly on the phone then it is not really a big issue.
To respond to that I am going to focus on just one Feb 2019 patch. There have been plenty of other security issues in Jan 2019 to now but for purposes of this discussion, I will just focus on one. The CVE-2019-1988 seems to still apply to still apply to any Motorola phone that is "up-to-date" but has a Jan 2019 security level. This vulnerability as a high impact score of 10 out of 10 and an easy exploitability score of 8.6 out of 10. The attack complexity is low and "could lead to remote code execution in system_server with no additional execution privileges needed."
What would need to result from this for it to be considered a violation of Lenovo and Motorola's marketing of making security a top priority?
What if an email or MMS ("text message") or instant message could do any of the following:
* Open and stream the microphone while the phone is locked
* Take and transmit pictures from either the front or rear camera while the phone is locked
* Send and receive text messages while the phone is locked
* Transmit phone location while the phone is locked
* Access and transmit email and files/documents on Google Drive and Google Docs while the phone is locked
Would any of this be disturbing? Is Lenovo/Motorola really delivering on "[preventing] unauthorized access with secure biometrics" if this is possible while the phone is locked?
I get this is all theoretical and I sound like I have been wearing a tin foil hat (maybe I am ). Anyone want to find out? Anyone want to give me the phone number to a Moto G6? Anyone want to give me the email address that they use with their Moto G6? How confident are people that not having financials stored directly on the phone means CVE-2019-1988 is not a major issue?
So far, people's reactions have been similar to this forum that there is still things people can do to maintain their privacy while using a device in this state. No one wants to believe that a major company would leave them so exposed. Lenovo/Motorola seems to be banking on no one understand the full scope of the problem. But what if a Proof of Concept of a Remote Access Trojan launched not via installing an application but simply from viewing a PNG really happened, would anyone be interested that? Would being able to actually demonstrate a PoC RAT have any positive value in holding Motorola accountable to their marketing claims or simply feed "hackers" with an exploit? If it is already known to be easily exploitable, shouldn't it be safe to assume any criminal that wanted it already has created their own implementation?
What exactly is XDA's stand on a real PoC RAT full disclosure? Is XDA taking on the stance that a RAT disclosure is always only harmful? Or is it that Motorola's actions are harmful?
@chilinux
Relax, you don't need to attack me. I can see you're feeling very hostile.
I didn't say you or anyone should accept it. I said it's common on low end devices. Even low to midrange devices.
I don't care what you paid for it. I have the g6 play and paid $99 for it. And it has been updated to pie with March security patch.
Moto is not great at supplying updates the way they were when they were under Google. Not many companies in China that are shopping phones to other countries are good at it.
It sucks, I was agreeing with you.
So rant at someone else. Geez
madbat99 said:
@chilinux
Relax, you don't need to attack me. I can see you're feeling very hostile.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am very sorry you feel personally attacked. I do admit that I have taken a hostile stance but I wasn't trying to attack you.
My point is that I have already heard from users that the issue is not really that bad. It really seems like a demonstration is the only way to change the Lenovo/Motorola business model of leveraging customer misconception. At the same time, the XDA ToS seems to be at odds with using this forum as the method of giving such a demonstration. To me, this means XDA is passively contributing to Motorola's clearly invalid marketing of using product security to protect against unauthorized access.
Allowing remote unauthorized access is very much part of how the Moto G6 functions.
chilinux said:
I am very sorry you feel personally attacked. I do admit that I have taken a hostile stance but I wasn't trying to attack you.
My point is that I have already heard from users that the issue is not really that bad. It really seems like a demonstration is the only way to change the Lenovo/Motorola business model of leveraging customer misconception. At the same time, the XDA ToS seems to be at odds with using this forum as the method of giving such a demonstration. To me, this means XDA is passively contributing to Motorola's clearly invalid marketing of using product security to protect against unauthorized access.
Allowing remote unauthorized access is very much part of how the Moto G6 functions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
XDA needs to cover their butts. They walk a fine line on many things.
To provide members the most information, useful guides, and general Android knowledge; they do have to remain, for lack of a better term, "neutral".
They allow us access to guides, knowledge, and even files, that allow us to take back some semblance of "ownership" of our devices. And that is despite many OEM, and country, restrictions, regulations, and "ownership", be it proprietary or what have you, that threaten their voice.
We, in turn, try to adhere to their rules to maintain an even keel, so to speak. So as not to make it harder, or impossible, to do the good work they are doing.
That said, this may not be the platform to achieve the ends you seek. Even if others share your view, in part, or otherwise.
Make sense?
madbat99 said:
XDA needs to cover their butts. They walk a fine line on many things.
To provide members the most information, useful guides, and general Android knowledge; they do have to remain, for lack of a better term, "neutral".
They allow us access to guides, knowledge, and even files, that allow us to take back some semblance of "ownership" of our devices. And that is despite many OEM, and country, restrictions, regulations, and "ownership", be it proprietary or what have you, that threaten their voice.
We, in turn, try to adhere to their rules to maintain an even keel, so to speak. So as not to make it harder, or impossible, to do the good work they are doing.
That said, this may not be the platform to achieve the ends you seek. Even if others share your view, in part, or otherwise.
Make sense?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand what it is you are trying to saying that XDA sees it to their advantage to not rock the boat too much. That doesn't mean it makes sense to me.
Here is how I view how the world works when people don't speak out:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/12/middleeast/khashoggi-phone-malware-intl/index.html
If Motorola wants to specify that security and safety simply is not part of this product, then I can understand them making that part of their *stated* business model. But Lenovo/Motorola has decided they can market a product as preventing authorized access without doing the work required to actually provide that feature. There should be moral and ethical issues raised when knowingly letting a company mislead their customers to that extent.
There should be room someplace on the XDA forum to create a penetration/vulnerability to put customers of Motorola in a better position for informed consent. The idea that the average person can take the April and May 2019 security bulletins and understand what that really means just doesn't work out. They know what the word "critical" means but usually don't know what RCE is and largely take it as being someone else's problem. The level of conflict of interest on the part of Motorola is not made clear.
Instead, the average person still focuses on if when they are going to see the latest Avengers movie. "CVE-2019-2027" means nothing but if you show them April/May gives criminals all of the infinity gems such that at a click of their fingers half of customers of Motorola have their privacy turn to dust, then that is something they can at least understand. Then they can more meaningfully decide if it is reasonable/safe to use that device without leaving airplane mode permanently on.
chilinux said:
I understand what it is you are trying to saying that XDA sees it to their advantage to not rock the boat too much. That doesn't mean it makes sense to me.
Here is how I view how the world works when people don't speak out:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/12/middleeast/khashoggi-phone-malware-intl/index.html
If Motorola wants to specify that security and safety simply is not part of this product, then I can understand them making that part of their *stated* business model. But Lenovo/Motorola has decided they can market a product as preventing authorized access without doing the work required to actually provide that feature. There should be moral and ethical issues raised when knowingly letting a company mislead their customers to that extent.
There should be room someplace on the XDA forum to create a penetration/vulnerability to put customers of Motorola in a better position for informed consent. The idea that the average person can take the April and May 2019 security bulletins and understand what that really means just doesn't work out. They know what the word "critical" means but usually don't know what RCE is and largely take it as being someone else's problem. The level of conflict of interest on the part of Motorola is not made clear.
Instead, the average person still focuses on if when they are going to see the latest Avengers movie. "CVE-2019-2027" means nothing but if you show them April/May gives criminals all of the infinity gems such that at a click of their fingers half of customers of Motorola have their privacy turn to dust, then that is something they can at least understand. Then they can more meaningfully decide if it is reasonable/safe to use that device without leaving airplane mode permanently on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope. Nobody is "honest" in marketing. They would sell nothing. Is it right....? No. Is it going to continue? Of course.
There are places to speak out. This isn't IT. Period.
You want a Google device that updates with every patch, you're gonna have to get a Pixel. Flat out. No company truly cares about you're security. They start companies to make money. The end. Right or wrong. Sorry bro. It is what it is.
Unless a company specifically spelled it out in the laws of the country their marketing in they don't have to do it. They can skirt rules and regulations anyway they possibly can. And they have lawyers to make sure they get around that crap. Marketing gimmicks do not equal legal regulation obedience.
if you have a medium to carry out the plan you intend to, find it and do it. just make sure no consumers are harmed in the process. because then the line has been crossed where you're not helping anyone but hurting people.
companies are going to sell their products at the greatest profitt imaginable and that's just the way things are going to be until some company proves that profits lie somewhere else. There isn't much you or I can do about it.
Again, this is not the medium for you to carry out such a vision. the most we hope to do here is to give users the keys to find a way to pick the lock for themselves. Not a way to circumvent the rules, punish the guilty, or vindicate innocence. There are places for that.
I'm going to bed now because I get up for work early. Good luck dude. hope you feel better in the morning.
how many people in the budget phone range are still using phones that haven't even been updated past kit Kat. Just a bit of a reality check. Up-to-the-minute security patches don't mean much to those who are struggling just to have a device to communicate with.
Infinity gems be damned, level-headed decisions with your device make all the difference in the world
madbat99 said:
just make sure no consumers are harmed in the process. because then the line has been crossed where you're not helping anyone but hurting people.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can not no consumers would ever be harmed by anything I ever released. TeamViewer has been weaponized to performing scams. UPX was weaponized to help hide malware from detection. Cerberus antitheft app for Android has the potential to be weaponized. Magisk can be weaponized for malware to avoid detection on Android. To claim any of those projects is "not helping anyone" is really a stretch.
The security audit PoC suite would be similar to previously publicly released project. It would have a method of install via exploit similar to JailbreakMe and it would provide demonstration on what privileged level access provides similar to Back Orifice 2000. Both of those previous project had the potential to weaponize but also helped customers make a better informed decisions about the products they use.
madbat99 said:
how many people in the budget phone range are still using phones that haven't even been updated past kit Kat. Just a bit of a reality check. Up-to-the-minute security patches don't mean much to those who are struggling just to have a device to communicate with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just a bit of a reality check, I know a medical doctor that discusses information that should be legally protected under HIPAA in the same room as a Moto G6. When a vendor misrepresents the degree to which unauthorized access to a device's microphone is prevented, then more than just people struggling to communicate are impacted. That level of misplaced trust also means the privacy impact extends beyond just owners of the phone.
It is also a level of mistaken trust that was contributed to by people like Ronald Comstock with the XDA Developers sponsorship team which recommended this phone. It might be possible to make an excuse that at the time the recommendation was made it wasn't known how far behind security updates for the product would go. However, the XDA sponsorship team never posted a retraction and the XDA ToS makes it hard to effectively counter the vendor's misrepresentations of the XDA recommended product.
chilinux said:
I can not no consumers would ever be harmed by anything I ever released. TeamViewer has been weaponized to performing scams. UPX was weaponized to help hide malware from detection. Cerberus antitheft app for Android has the potential to be weaponized. Magisk can be weaponized for malware to avoid detection on Android. To claim any of those projects is "not helping anyone" is really a stretch.
Just a bit of a reality check, I know a medical doctor that discusses information that should be legally protected under HIPAA in the same room as a Moto G6. When a vendor misrepresents the degree to which unauthorized access to a device's microphone is prevented, then more than just people struggling to communicate are impacted. That level of misplaced trust also means the privacy impact extends beyond just owners of the phone.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It can be said that security and privacy are separate issues.
But your insights are well stated.
I remember when a "researcher" seemingly died right before demonstrating how security flaws in insulin pumps could kill a man. (We know who did it Jack) so security is a real concern. And big money will always try to silence what is too expensive to fix. So I get your point. Just goes a little beyond XDA is all I meant. No hard feelings intended, so I hope you didn't take it that way.
madbat99 said:
And big money will always try to silence what is too expensive to fix. So I get your point. Just goes a little beyond XDA is all I meant. No hard feelings intended, so I hope you didn't take it that way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have hard feeling about this issue but not about what you have said.
I also have a much less issue with "big money" not spending money were it does not need to. But they need to be transparent about that.
What I have hard feelings about is this:
https://androidenterprisepartners.withgoogle.com/device/#!/5659118702428160
And statements from Google related to that page such as:
"Organizations can then select devices from the curated list with confidence that they meet a common set of criteria, required for inclusion in the Android Enterprise
Recommended program ... Mandatory delivery of Android security updates within 90 days of release from Google (30 days recommended), for a minimum of three years"
As appears in this document:
https://static.googleusercontent.co...droid_Enterprise_Security_Whitepaper_2018.pdf
Ninety days from the February 5, 2019 security update bulletin was May 6, 2019. Choosing from that list does not result in mandatory delivery of security updates within 90 days. Google and David Kleidermacher are drowning consumers with willfully misleading information to put trust into devices that aren't held to the criteria they claim they are.
am i the only one who doesn't give a crap about security patches? i just want my phone to work, which my G6 does, just fine.
Dadud said:
am i the only one who doesn't give a crap about security patches? i just want my phone to work, which my G6 does, just fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are far from the only one who doesn't care about security patches. I would agree with you that you should not have to care. Addressing problems that are over 90 days old are stated to be the responsibility of Google and Motorola to have taken care of.
In terms of it working just fine, my point is while it appears to normally be fine there is known ways that unapproved behavior can be applied to the product without the owners being aware of them. To me that is not working as advertised and is also not really working fine.