**Please move thread if needed**
Hi im completely new to this website but have a strange idea that might bring the nexus 6 back to life! It probably wont work but can we add this?:
Cant add links yet..but it is a nexus 5x fingerprint scanner on ebay for 10$ usd
Since android 6.0 supports it itll work software wise i think?
But my main question would be will it connect to the N6?
Also you'd need to mod the back cover to have a hole now i guess.
Please let me know if this is possible
Thanks!
Who says the Nexus 6 is dead?
Anyway, what you want to do I don't believe is possible as there is no way to plug the scanner into the motherboard. That's the biggest problem you're going to have. If you can somehow overcome that obstacle, then the rest may be possible as it is mostly kernel drivers, binaries, and Android itself. Personally, I see too much work for too little reward. In the United States, NOT having a fingerprint scanner on your device is actually a good thing, especially if you value your privacy. You're better off using a password or pattern lock, because with a fingerprint scanner, depending on location police in the US can compel you to unlock your phone without a warrant.
I read somewhere that they had intended for it to have it but it was axed and that's how we got the Larger Dimple in the Back.
carlosjcar said:
I read somewhere that they had intended for it to have it but it was axed and that's how we got the Larger Dimple in the Back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe the large dimple at the back is more of a design attribute. Helps in a better stability when holding with a single hand. If I'm not wrong, I've seen it on motog as well.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Jaspreet84 said:
I believe the large dimple at the back is more of a design attribute. Helps in a better stability when holding with a single hand. If I'm not wrong, I've seen it on motog as well.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really. Nexus 6 prototype had a fingerprint sensor. And maybe here will fit Nexus 5x fingerprint sensor. I made a picture. As we see we dont have where to connect fingerprint. I dont know maybe its hided. I never tried to open back cover and look into it.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Ifixit did a teardown of the Nexus 6. The mainboard of production units has no connection for a fingerprint scanner. Now, if there were pictures of the prototype's mainboard available that would help figure out whether there was an actual connector or the scanner was juryrigged. If juryrigged, it may be possible to repeat the process on a production unit.
EDIT: I found additional pictures on Google. It wasn't readily apparent in the pictures above, but the fingerprint scanner was to be part of the upper ribbon cable on production units. So, we have the connector, but there is another issue: how to get the fingerprint scanner to connect to the existing ribbon cable, since you cannot slip two ribbon cables into one connector.
Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
Ifixit did a teardown of the Nexus 6. The mainboard of production units has no connection for a fingerprint scanner. Now, if there were pictures of the prototype's mainboard available that would help figure out whether there was an actual connector or the scanner was juryrigged. If juryrigged, it may be possible to repeat the process on a production unit.
EDIT: I found additional pictures on Google. It wasn't readily apparent in the pictures above, but the fingerprint scanner was to be part of the upper ribbon cable on production units. So, we have the connector, but there is another issue: how to get the fingerprint scanner to connect to the existing ribbon cable, since you cannot slip two ribbon cables into one connector.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My guess is that a fingerprint sensor is *probably* just a simple i2c interface, and maybe an interrupt. Likely those two signals are already on the ribbon cable that is in there. What that means, is that you *might* be able to add it, but it would require a custom made ribbon cable.
More important question though (@OP mainly)... is why would you go to all that trouble? A fingerprint is really NOT a great biometric security feature, they aren't that difficult to duplicate. In fact, a half decent hacker could duplicate your fingerprint by reading your fingerprints off the phone's body and the fingerprint sensor itself.
Its nothing that would "bring it back to life", its just a gimmick. Fact is that Nexus 6 really is still all the way up there by today's standards. It is NOT universally outperformed today's newer phones -- it DOES hold its own against SD810, winning more in benchmarks than it loses. For example, the single-threaded performance of the SD805 absolutely obliterates the 810.
@doitright: I already pointed out to the OP one of the big pitfalls of a fingerprint scanner, that pitfall being police can compel you to unlock your phone without a warrant. The lack of a fingerprint scanner is one reason why I picked the Nexus 6 in the first place, instead of spending lots more money for the 6P. Staying away from the 810 is another.
Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
that pitfall being police can compel you to unlock your phone without a warrant.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You sure about that? What jurisdiction would that be, and what is the written law that supports it? It doesn't sound right, and I can't imagine there being any difference between being compelled on a biometric vs a passphrase... On top of that, of course, is the fact that just because it has a fingerprint sensor, doesn't mean that you need to use it or teach it your fingerprint.
doitright said:
You sure about that? What jurisdiction would that be, and what is the written law that supports it? It doesn't sound right, and I can't imagine there being any difference between being compelled on a biometric vs a passphrase... On top of that, of course, is the fact that just because it has a fingerprint sensor, doesn't mean that you need to use it or teach it your fingerprint.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-a-suspect-unlock-a-phone-with-a-fingerprint/
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/...s-to-unlock-fingerprint-protected-smartphones
The precedent has been set already, both articles explain why it stood in court. Essentially, they say that your fingerprint is like DNA and can be collected at the crime scene and if it leads to additional evidence, so be it.
Dusty Rhodes said:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-a-suspect-unlock-a-phone-with-a-fingerprint/
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/...s-to-unlock-fingerprint-protected-smartphones
The precedent has been set already, both articles explain why it stood in court. Essentially, they say that your fingerprint is like DNA and can be collected at the crime scene and if it leads to additional evidence, so be it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's pretty scary, but not exactly the same as what you suggested. In particular, it doesn't look like the police can compel you, since even things like DNA/breath sample/etc., can't just be demanded on a whim, rather this would be compel, as in a judicial order, aka "warrant".
doitright said:
That's pretty scary, but not exactly the same as what you suggested. In particular, it doesn't look like the police can compel you, since even things like DNA/breath sample/etc., can't just be demanded on a whim, rather this would be compel, as in a judicial order, aka "warrant".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it says:
A Virginia state trial court held that a suspect “cannot be compelled [by the police] to produce his passcode to access his smartphone but he can be compelled to produce his fingerprint to do the same.”
It doesn't say by the courts but specifically "by the police", but I'm not a lawyer so my chances of being incorrect are pretty high. It just seems to me that they are talking about when someone is a suspect the police are allowed to "compel" you to unlock your device via fingerprint. Either way, it all seems shady as hell.
Dusty Rhodes said:
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it says:
A Virginia state trial court held that a suspect “cannot be compelled [by the police] to produce his passcode to access his smartphone but he can be compelled to produce his fingerprint to do the same.”
It doesn't say by the courts but specifically "by the police", but I'm not a lawyer so my chances of being incorrect are pretty high. It just seems to me that they are talking about when someone is a suspect the police are allowed to "compel" you to unlock your device via fingerprint. Either way, it all seems shady as hell.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those article's are *NOT* written by lawyers.
If you read the second one carefully, there is a key in this bit; "Because Baust evidently refused to unlock his phone so that the police could look for the incriminating video evidence, the prosecution filed a motion to compel him to do so.
The court reasoned that the success of the motion turned on whether a passcode or a fingerprint was “testimonial communication” under the Supreme Court’s precedents, concluding that the former was and the latter was not. Judge Frucci therefore granted the state’s motion as to the fingerprints, but not as to the password."
So it was a MOTION TO COMPEL, which was granted by the court. The motion was filed by the prosecution. The police have nothing to do with it except that (a) their demand was initially refused, and (b) they are the ones who would ultimately carry out the order, assuming that it holds up to appeals.
doitright said:
Those article's are *NOT* written by lawyers.
If you read the second one carefully, there is a key in this bit; "Because Baust evidently refused to unlock his phone so that the police could look for the incriminating video evidence, the prosecution filed a motion to compel him to do so.
The court reasoned that the success of the motion turned on whether a passcode or a fingerprint was “testimonial communication” under the Supreme Court’s precedents, concluding that the former was and the latter was not. Judge Frucci therefore granted the state’s motion as to the fingerprints, but not as to the password."
So it was a MOTION TO COMPEL, which was granted by the court. The motion was filed by the prosecution. The police have nothing to do with it except that (a) their demand was initially refused, and (b) they are the ones who would ultimately carry out the order, assuming that it holds up to appeals.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you! So much hubhub over nothing.
First of all, this is the granting of a motion in a District Court in Virginia. It has persuasive value, sure, but it's very very low on the totem pole of persuasion. It certainly doesn't have precedential value although the issue may come up later, so far, the specific issue has yet to be actually been brought up in front of a court of record on its merits, so frankly, we don't know but as of now what an individual judge did for a motion speaks for very little as to concerns about fingerprint readers on a phone.
Second of all, the decision cites the lockbox/safe-combo analogy many times. US v. Hubble, 530 U.S. 23 (2000). This is still good law, but ultimately this is an analogy to explain to the layperson the difference between testimonial (knowledge that you have to divulge because it's in your head and must be compelled to produce out of essentially not existing in the physical realm) and non-testimonial (a physical item that simply exists, like the reading of the time on the clock, a tattoo on someone's knuckles etc). The only distinction the court really makes is that passcodes are testimonial and fingerprints aren't because they physically exist no matter what happens (unless you chop off your fingers, I suppose). This is very preliminary and speaks nothing about the admissibility of the evidence, if any, found on the phone are admissible, any information is relevant, anything could be suppressed, etc. The case has just started and this is really a minor bump in the road for defense, not some giant loss for the privacy community in itself. Sure, you got the fingerprints, but what can you access once you get past the lockscreen that'll be admissible in court? If you can't actually use it then it's really a pointless exercise (except in billing).
Third, while not entirely on point, the decision in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) shows that the court does actually respond to changing attitudes in how ordinary citizens use devices. While the VA case deals with the issue of responding to a court order, the Supreme Court case deal with a search incident to arrest without a warrant. If there's enough to get a warrant or the VA equivalent (unfamiliar with VA law here, sorry) that requires a motion to compel discovery, prosecution has already built at least somewhat a case against you. There are a multitude of defense strategies but the "I didn't do it" defense is not likely to be on the table if there's potentially incriminating video unless that video directly contradicts victim's description (it happens, but exceedingly rare). Hopefully the rest of us won't find ourselves in this kind of a situation, warrantless search of one's cellphone contents in ANY STATE is still not allowed under Riley as a search incident to arrest, because the precedent there, Chimel, is about weapons and preservation of evidence. Phones are not usually used as weapons - especially today, back in 2009 when Riley was arrested we were all using RAZRs - and if we want to set some sort of program, device, or trigger to encrypt or delete the evidence, the officer would likely not be able to do anything about it, or possibly even know about it, so there's no reason to allow it. Unless those procedures or codes are suddenly nonexistent, your phone, fingerprint or passcode, can't be searched with a warrant. The opinion by CJ Roberts specifically states that " Cell phones, however, place vast quantities of personal information literally in the hands of individuals." Id., 10 (differentiating between a patdown). Roberts also mentioned that there are very few cases where a person, who is about to be arrested, has the time to erase evidence himself that quickly and encryption wasn't even mentioned originally because it was a feature that became widespread while the case was ongoing.
Hell, read the opinion if you want to, these are people in their 70s and 80s talking about technology we use today and how our privacy would be intruded in a far greater and significant way than before if warrantless cell phone searches are allowed. Just Google "Riley v. California". This, I think, speaks volumes and in a voice far louder than an order from a District Court in Virginia. If the highest court of the land thinks that there's such a substantial privacy interest to one's cell phone data that trumps glove compartments, lockboxes, passenger compartments, trunks, pockets, and what have you that outside of some immediate exigent circumstances (you swallowing that SD card connected to your OTG adapter) you need a particularized warrant before searching the contents of one, then I think the law is moving in the right direction as a whole. And it's not all old decrepit defense attorneys who are defending these cases. I worked for one attorney who barely use email, but he's on the edge of retirement. Many young attorneys are very in tune with technology and hell, you don't think you'll find a rooted phone or two with custom kernel, recovery, and ROM in a Big Law office in Manhattan?
Most cases of note lately that I know of have been moving towards the notion that one has a lot of privacy interest in the phone's data and access to it must be strictly limited, and even the VA order notes that, albeit briefly because it's not the topic. I don't know what's the result of the VA Dist. Court. case, but I'd imagine even if you get into someone's phone there's gonna be a lot of stuff you can't touch and the law will follow up to address that. I don't think anyone should freak out over a fingerprint reader unless you plan on using that phone to commit some crime that leaves evidence on your phone in a way where a warrant can be produced that fits the criteria required,. I'm sure the question will be revisited substantially when fingerprint unlocking is widespread and commonplace but not yet.
tl;dr: Chill out, the Supreme Court knows that cell phone data is serious and private and for 99.999% of the folks here (give or take) with or without fingerprints cops won't come looking through your phone for ****s and giggles to see if you committed a crime.
Related
Is There A Way To Implement This Or Port It For The Nexus S? I Know Our Phone Doesnt Have The Reader On The Phone But Is It Possible To Substitute It With Something Else That Only We Can Unlock Our Phones With. I Saw The Video Earlier And Was Quite Impressed. What Do You Guys Think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFmIgNhg0M4
Having a fingerprint scanner on a cellphone is just as stupid as having it on a computer, it's nothing but a security hazard, your fingerprints will be smeared all over your device and/or keyboard and it will be much easier to bypass than an ordinary password.
Now, apart from that, sure it'd be nice to show off with. But there's nothing that can do anything like it with the NS. One thing I did see though was using an NFC-card as a "key" for your phone.
Blu3D said:
Having a fingerprint scanner on a cellphone is just as stupid as having it on a computer, it's nothing but a security hazard, your fingerprints will be smeared all over your device and/or keyboard and it will be much easier to bypass than an ordinary password.
Now, apart from that, sure it'd be nice to show off with. But there's nothing that can do anything like it with the NS. One thing I did see though was using an NFC-card as a "key" for your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's your opinion but there is no way of it smearing on the atrix as you can see in the video. You smear more when you type on the nexus.
Sent From Your Mom's Nexus S.
I tend to agree with the opinion that Biometrics on a phone are just a little over the top and could lead to some problems. The idea that your print would be smeared all over the device, however, is just ludacris. The issues I see arising would be, for example, disabling the phone from being returned to you. Just as it prevents people who would use their phones maliciously it prevents people from trying to find the owner of a found device. I once worked at a movie theater and often we returned found cell phones by calling people on their speed dial and asking whomever picked up to inform the person whose number appeared on their caller id that there phone had been found.
Sent from my MattedBlues CM7 Google Nexus S!
Just a question, but given that the camera can also double up as a barcode reader, wouldn't it theoretically be possible for it to be able to take a good enough quality image of a finger so that it could determine it's uniqueness and therefore identity?
I'm not saying it's a reasonable security mechanism, but it would be pretty cool if it could be done...
kenvan19 said:
I tend to agree with the opinion that Biometrics on a phone are just a little over the top and could lead to some problems. The idea that your print would be smeared all over the device, however, is just ludacris. The issues I see arising would be, for example, disabling the phone from being returned to you. Just as it prevents people who would use their phones maliciously it prevents people from trying to find the owner of a found device. I once worked at a movie theater and often we returned found cell phones by calling people on their speed dial and asking whomever picked up to inform the person whose number appeared on their caller id that there phone had been found.
Sent from my MattedBlues CM7 Google Nexus S!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Atrix takes and records both your left and right index finger 3-8 times. So unless your a double amputee....
Yeah it would be a good idea
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
True. But its just a idea.
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
robstunner said:
The Atrix takes and records both your left and right index finger 3-8 times. So unless your a double amputee....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry but what does that have to do with other people being able to use your phone? The other issue would be in situations like my wife and I have; we have the same phone and often times I take her phone for the day in order to fix issues on her phone but if her phone required her fingerprint to unlock I couldn't do that. Or another example; I usually drive when we go places but most of our friends text/call me about plans and I often get emails and texts about work while we're driving and in both of these cases, I usually need to respond as soon as possible if not immediately. If my phone required my fingerprint to unlock it would add a very unnecessary step to the process of having her respond to these messages.
I'm not saying there are no uses for a fingerprint scanner; for example if you have a lot of sensitive information on your phone like a lawyer or a government official or a doctor or any other number of professions might then requiring your fingerprint to unlock makes sense. But for an average Joe user like me or many other users it just seems like a lot of cloak and dagger to protect my score in Paper Toss lol
kenvan19 said:
I'm sorry but what does that have to do with other people being able to use your phone? The other issue would be in situations like my wife and I have; we have the same phone and often times I take her phone for the day in order to fix issues on her phone but if her phone required her fingerprint to unlock I couldn't do that. Or another example; I usually drive when we go places but most of our friends text/call me about plans and I often get emails and texts about work while we're driving and in both of these cases, I usually need to respond as soon as possible if not immediately. If my phone required my fingerprint to unlock it would add a very unnecessary step to the process of having her respond to these messages.
I'm not saying there are no uses for a fingerprint scanner; for example if you have a lot of sensitive information on your phone like a lawyer or a government official or a doctor or any other number of professions might then requiring your fingerprint to unlock makes sense. But for an average Joe user like me or many other users it just seems like a lot of cloak and dagger to protect my score in Paper Toss lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You forgot Angry Birds.
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
kenvan19 said:
I'm sorry but what does that have to do with other people being able to use your phone? The other issue would be in situations like my wife and I have; we have the same phone and often times I take her phone for the day in order to fix issues on her phone but if her phone required her fingerprint to unlock I couldn't do that. Or another example; I usually drive when we go places but most of our friends text/call me about plans and I often get emails and texts about work while we're driving and in both of these cases, I usually need to respond as soon as possible if not immediately. If my phone required my fingerprint to unlock it would add a very unnecessary step to the process of having her respond to these messages.
I'm not saying there are no uses for a fingerprint scanner; for example if you have a lot of sensitive information on your phone like a lawyer or a government official or a doctor or any other number of professions might then requiring your fingerprint to unlock makes sense. But for an average Joe user like me or many other users it just seems like a lot of cloak and dagger to protect my score in Paper Toss lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Atrix requires a PIN in addition to both index fingers. So as long as you knew your wifes passcode you would be fine.
Sent from my atrix using tapatalk
Today we’re looking at the SIGNALBOOST DT from Wilson Electronics.
Click here for pricing, working informational links, and links to purchase.
This is the home version of the Wilson's cell phone signal booster tech, you remember that we'd taken a look at the Sleek 4G-v a while ago which is the in car solution to low bars and dropped calls. Wilson makes a version of their tech to grow and fit any need. Aside from home and auto options that you can easily install yourself, they offer large scale systems that can cover your entire business with a professional installation. As I'd mentioned in the Sleek 4G review, this isn't a gimmick. No stickers, no false promises. If you have at least a little bit of signal, Wilson's products can amplify it. Read on...
Click here to see a video slideshow of the SIGNALBOOST DT
Main advantage: No physical connection to cell phone needed, product will wirelessly boost the signal of an entire room in your home
Main concern: Install is simple, but not easy. Specific distances need to be maintained and based on the layout of your home things can get a bit tricky
Unique features: Works with all major carriers, Boosts the signals of multiple phones at the same time
I still personally maintain the theory that the cell service providers greatly limit the true capabilities of phones to always have a wild card up their sleeves. When technology has advanced beyond anything and it's hard to impress they can always announce, “guaranteed signal increase of up to two bars with our new service” Verizon is definitely capable of this and many other atrocities that would frighten school children across the world if I were to speculate here in print. I'll spare the world the horror and we'll just agree that cell service could be much improved across the board. We need a third party to step in, we need an equalizer to take the power out of the hands of the big 4 here in the US. Wilson Electronics might just be the hero that we need.
I wouldn't trust a person who wasn't at least a bit skeptical about spending a couple of hundred dollars on a cell phone signal booster. Let's get a little backstory to begin. The first thing that helped to bring my attention to Wilson is that Verizon and others were trying to rally the government to ban products like theirs. It's clear that when the bad guy says that something is bad it's most likely bad for them. The cell providers were working furiously for years through the diversions and double speak of lawyers and lobbyists to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The baby being real solutions like Wilson's and the bathwater being the congested sea of snake oil created by years of AS SEEN ON TV cell booster sticker nonsense.
Let's say that you owned an emerging healthy chain restaurant in New York City. You're highly trained and you make great healthy food and business is growing. One day, an employee at a Jack in the Box in Idaho spills floor cleaner in the special sauce and everyone gets sick. Back in New York, there is a big company that sells junky microwave dinners to supermarkets and business is being hurt by how tasty and healthy your food is. The company decides to lobby the government to have all restaurants in the country shut down including your chain in New York. All of this because of an untrained idiot in Idaho (no offense Idaho.) On the surface it might seem like the frozen dinner company is genuinely concerned about the well being of the people, but a little reasonable thought and you can see that it's all a ploy to get rid of the healthy chain that's threatening business with a great product that is a better choice than their own frozen heart attacks. That's basically the idea here, and it's obviously a ridiculous case. Verizon and others didn't win, but they successfully delayed and cast doubt over products like this unfortunately. My job as a journalist is to tell you the truth without exception. Signal boosters like Wilson's aren't perfect, but if you have at least some reception anywhere in the country, Wilson will show you at least some improvement in signal.
To dramatically sum this up, Verizon and the other major carriers are selling a disease that they don't want cured, and Wilson Electronics wants to sell you the medicine.
I mentioned briefly above that the system is simple, but not necessarily easy. It's basically only three pieces; an outdoor and indoor antenna, and a desktop receiver. All the required installation wires and hardware are included in the package. You're given the instructions for three separate scenarios to install the main outdoor antenna. The first, which is described as the best, is outside on or near your roof mounted to a pole. The outdoor antenna comes with a cradle and it is weatherized and sealed for prolonged outdoor use. Any weather damage is covered for a year after purchase to ease any doubts. This is the preferred option as I stated, and I'm sure it would be the only option if it wasn't a very difficult task for many people. I personally live in a multistory building that doesn't allow roof access. The next best option is an outdoor wall mounted installation. You're given the hardware to drill into your home's outer walls where you'll then mount the outdoor antenna facing the nearest cell phone tower. Again, in a multistory building, this isn't a very practical option. That leaves us with the last option that is the simplest but also the least effective, indoor suction cup mounting to a window.
Once you decide which install you're capable of, the only challenge left is running coaxial cable. If the name doesn't ring a bell, coaxial cable is the thicker white wire that your cable man installs. The unit comes with two lengths of RG6 cables, one 20' and one 30' for a total of 50' of possible separation. Also included is an optional adapter to attach the two lengths together if need be. You need a minimum of 20' separation between the outdoor and indoor antennas which can get tricky depending on your home's layout. The best layout that I could find meant that I mounted the antenna on my living room window and dropped the cable down to the base of the floor as the cable man might. I then followed the corners of the room, through a hallway, into my office where there was about 25' separation all together. I then connected the indoor antenna to the other side of the coaxial cable. It's designed to lay flat with 4 rubber skid proof buttons on the bottom. You then just need to connect the desktop receiver which will need to face away from the antenna for optimal functionality. The system works best in a smaller area such an office or bedroom. After connecting all of the components, plug in the included AC adapter to power the device and then you have the option to further tune the device to work just right for you.
A very welcomed addition to this system is a two light on-board notification system that helps you to get the best signal. The lights with show in three colors; red, orange, and green. Red means you aren't configured correctly and it turns the device off altogether to not interfere with any existing signal. Orange means you're getting closer and Green as you've guessed, means you're in tune. Two dials under each light allow you to adjust if you can no longer move the actual components of the system. The further down you turn the dials, the less signal improvement you'll see though. After every adjustment to the dial you'll need to wait at least 5 seconds for the signal to reset. Though the process as I've laid it out might seem involved, remember that it is only a one time setup. You'll never need to touch the pieces of the system after you install (in fact, you won't want to touch them because you might mess with the perfect signal that you worked so hard to get in the first place)
If you'd like to see the full PDF of the included installation instructions, click here.
Here is a site that can help you to find the location of local cell towers.
I tried to set the system up in a few different sections of my own home that are known to get the best reception, though the best is still normally only 2 bars at best. While I found technical success, I didn't find the dramatic increase that many happy customers have reported across the internet. I live in a notoriously difficult cell phone reception area so I don't blame the device. In the end I was able to improve from two bars to three bars. Specifically, the way a cell phone's reception is measured is through dBm. I'm not smart enough to technically understand this beyond knowing that he measurement is taken in negative numbers so a lower number is a better number. I improved from -107dbm to -96dbm which is a ten times increase in signal according to Wilson. I haven't dropped a call since and while it wasn't a frequent occurrence really, I did drop calls before. I have noticed a clear improvement in call volume actually which is very welcome. I'd spent many a phone call in the past with a finger angrily jammed into my ear trying to focus on a low call volume. Nevermore.
Thank you again to Wilson Electronics for supplying their product for review.
What's in the box: outdoor and indoor antenna, outdoor cradle, coaxial cable, ac adapter, install instructions, all mounting hardware
Is it worth buying: Many report a dramatic increase when using the product but the most important thing to remember is that this device isn't magic. It won't make something from nothing but if you have a weak signal it should give you a very usable and constant signal at the least. At best, people have reported that calls are so clear and loud that they need to actually turn the in-call volume down. While that wasn't my own experience, hundreds of accounts online plus my own give me full confidence in recommending the product. BUY WITH CONFIDENCE.
I hear what ya saying, and I'm not doubting intelligence of our forum readers, but I'm pretty sure your very passionate analogy with "jack in the box" will fly over the head of a lot of readers who click to read a review to find out if this is a product for them or not, in this case if they can justify spending $225 on a signal booster which can only provide one extra bar after an extensive setup
As you have seen, even with my reviews where I'm trying to get to the technical point quickly and have made some improvements lately to keep it shorter - people still skip to pictures Btw, the subject of review was just "REVIEW", so perhaps my reply will bring it up to someone's attention if they are interested in this product.
vectron said:
I hear what ya saying, and I'm not doubting intelligence of our forum readers, but I'm pretty sure your very passionate analogy with "jack in the box" will fly over the head of a lot of readers who click to read a review to find out if this is a product for them or not, in this case if they can justify spending $225 on a signal booster which can only provide one extra bar after an extensive setup
As you have seen, even with my reviews where I'm trying to get to the technical point quickly and have made some improvements lately to keep it shorter - people still skip to pictures Btw, the subject of review was just "REVIEW", so perhaps my reply will bring it up to someone's attention if they are interested in this product.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll give the members here the credit to handle a small story. They can always click through to the video slideshow with my blessing. :good:
As far as $225 for one extra bar. As I'd mentioned in the article there are many online accounts of a full five bars. I'm in a horrible spot, really uniquely horrible area for reception. The product has nearly 500 customer reviews on Amazon with a 4 star rating maintained, not an easy task when the amount of reviews is that high. In any event, this is a company that stands by their product. Buy it and set it up and if you aren't happy contact them and I'm sure they will make everything right. If not, as I've said before, post your issue here and I'll try to intervene if necessary.
samprocat said:
I do definitely agree with you I use them on all my vehicles and motorcycle. ..and there is only one thing to say.....it will rock your network in many places that are miles and miles from network
SGH-S959G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Glad to hear a real account samprocat.
snapz54 said:
Glad to hear a real account samprocat.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uh, is there a response that the rest of us can't see? Btw, Samprocat's using the mobile version that is wired to a vehicle antenna, Just sayin.
Man, you've got to learn to take constructive criticism bro.
It's obvious that you're not an independent reviewer and that your reviews also direct to your website (skating on the edge of forum rules).
With a product like this, I think a bit more research than 'hundreds of online reviews' is deserved.
Wilson makes a solid product,... for the right consumer. The consumer that understands that the best way to capitalize on this device is with high gain antennas and professional installation so that they don't have coaxial cables all over the place and an antenna in a weird location. A consumer that uses antennasearch.com and knows what to do with the search results. (I think you meant to put in a link for the antenna search in your review, but you missed it.)
Quite possibly the best thing about this product, is the company itself. They have excellent customer service. If you buy the right device. For example, you may want to mention in the review that the version you reviewed is the non-LTE version and that Wilson has a line of installation accessories that can help a person install it properly (but at some expense.) If someone's looking to take advantage of a newer phone's LTE capabilities, that may cost a bit more but hey, it's worth it.
apallohadas said:
Uh, is there a response that the rest of us can't see?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the quote came from a duplicate thread that he had made, but had typo'd the heading. He has simply copied that post to here to provide substantive information from another user.
Optimistic Pessimist said:
I think the quote came from a duplicate thread that he had made, but had typo'd the heading. He has simply copied that post to here to provide substantive information from another user.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What I think apallohadas meant is that samprocat's one short sentence statement was not a convincing testimonial, so he was asking if there is something more that we missed between the lines
vectron said:
What I think apallohadas meant is that samprocat's one short sentence statement was not a convincing testimonial, so he was asking if there is something more that we missed between the lines
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahh I see, Yeah just re-read his comment and got the context.
I'm happy with my review. I believe I was thorough enough to get a person enough to decide if they want to seriously think about purchasing the device. It isn't my task to replace your own thought process. The fact that someone belongs to this forum and is most likely active in phone customization and the ins and outs of that process shows that an average member is a thoughtful, intelligent, and above all else is very capable of independent thought. I'm only here to whet your appetite enough to let you know if a product is definitely not for you or if it perhaps deserves a little more investigating on your part. I would never make a decision based on one person's opinion and I don't expect that any of you would be either. At the same time, I'm always grateful to hear an honest review of a product with issues so that I can be warned of a possible mistake I might be making in even considering that product.
I try to write a review that is broad enough to bring in many different competencies without being dismissive or above anyone unfamiliar with the concepts involved. As to your point about it being obvious that I'm not only reviewing for XDA, I'm not trying to hide anything from anybody. Every article begins with a link to the source that has all correct hyperlinks and pricing. It's a very taxing process to put all of this together and I don't ask for a thing in return from anyone. I take the time to link these reviews to the source article and the youtube video as most would rather just see the slideshow and move on. I don't deny anyone that or discourage it. If I didn't link anything and just pasted a link to the source article I could see someone being upset but I am taking the time to paste the entire article and link the basics up here as well. The point is that if you're interested enough to want the links then please click on the source and it's all there for you to do as you please.
I appreciate any and all constructive criticism and the fact that people post thanks on here, on youtube, and elsewhere is enough to keep me motivated to keep reviewing product. Thank you for your support.
p.s. sorry about the confusion with the "phantom quote" optimistic understood and correctly described the situation. I made a mistake and samprocat had already commented in the thread that was being deleted because of my double post. I didn't want the member's comment thrown out so I quoted it and informed them through PM that I was doing so.
Serial numbers are not revisions
There's thread after thread after thread about Nexus defects and "311k fixed this but broke that". I've been posting a common response in most of these threads multiple times but it is too much effort to keep doing this.
Now please, all of you do this. Boot into your bootloader and look at your hardware version. It's rev_11, right?
That's because there is only ONE hardware version as per LG's understanding.
So what does 310, 311, 312 mean? Well it looks like month of manufacture doesn't it?! October, November, December?
2013-10K
2013-11K
2013-12K
2014-01K
"But, but, but i've got bigger speaker holes and my buttons don't rattle..."
Sure, manufacturing tolerances mean there will always be slight variances. Devices are built on different manufacturing lines, in different plants, in different countries perhaps - all maintained and calibrated by different teams. This is common. It is impossible (IMPOSSIBLE) to manufacture 2 identical devices. Humans are not good enough at it. This is why all the CPU's are binned between PSV 0-6.. these are within tolerance. Otherwise they'd all be PSV 3, or whatever is thought to be "optimum".
These tolerances mean that there are variations in every single component. No 2 are identical, meaning no 2 Nexus 5's are identical. Technically, every Nexus 5 is a variation. A variation of the perfect one, which probably doesn't exist
All these questions about "If I buy from store x" or "If I RMA now"..... "will I get new version?" Are pointless... there are no newer versions.
The defects reported exist across all the serial numbers. My 310 doesn't have any button rattle. It only rattles the autofocus when I rattle the device from side to side. So to say all 310's buttons rattle and all 311's fixed this is false... and now we have 312's with rattle... what happened? Did LG remove the fix? No! It was never a fix.
It seems some people want to RMA based on their serial number and nothing else or trying to avoid a particular serial... don't. Buy the device normally. If it has specific faults that you're not willing to put up with, RMA it. That's it. Please stop stressing about serial numbers. Buy your device and enjoy it, but please can we try and keep these threads where everyone posts "I've got a 311k and I have x fault" to a minimum? They're not helpful and mean nothing and clog up this forum with nonsense.
I admit the Defects thread may serve some purpose but this is happening there too, meaning the information is tainted.
Further logic
Here's some further logic I would like to include in this post.
The Nexus 5 is not manufactured in batches. It is manufactured 24/7. There is no end of an old batch and beginning of a new batch. The phone that rolls off the production line at 23:59 on October the 31st gets the 310K serial number. The very next phone that rolls off the same line at 00:00 on November 1st gets the 311K serial number.
If a fault had been found in 1 out of every 200 Nexus 5's, where the vibrator motor was faulty, what do you think would happen? Do you think that LG would discard the millions of vibrator motors they have in stock, replace every one with millions more and cease production immediately until the new motor is put in? The fact of the matter is if for every 1 Nexus 5 with a faulty vibrator, there are 199 with a working vibrator, it would be cheaper to repair the 1. What would you do if you were LG? Would you discard 199 good "type A" vibrators and buy 200 "type B" vibrators? Would you stop all of your productions lines and lose money by being unable to service demand? Or would it be cheaper to repair that 1 faulty device with a new vibrator and let the other 199 get manufactured and sold? Would you use up all the old stock of "type A" vibrators until they were gone, knowing only 1 in 200 would be faulty, then when you run out, start using "type B"? I certainly would as that is much cheaper than ceasing production in multiple plants around the world ans scrapping all the good "type a" motors.
In regards to the above, would all "type A" vibrators run out at 23:59 on October 31st, in every plant around the world? Then at 00:00 on November 1st, all "type B" would be used? If you were to scrap all "type A" vibrators and replace them with "type B", would you wait until the next month, when the serial number automatically changes? What would be the significance in that? If you're really going to be bold and scrap them all, you wouldn't wait until the end of the month. if you were happy to wait until the end of the month, then there would never have been a need to scrap them all in the first place. If the bold decision to scrap them ALL is made, you'd do it immediately
If you tightened Quality control, or started adding more glue to hold something in place, would you wait until midnight on the last day of the month to implement it? Why?
If tight rocker buttons and larger speaker holes are a fix and LG have waited to change serial number before implementing the fix, why are there even newer devices with newer serial numbers that do not have this "fix"? If loose rockers are something that needs to be fixed, why haven't all older devices got them? Why hasn't mine?
-----------------------
Sent via tapatalk.
I do NOT reply to support queries over PM. Please keep support queries to the Q&A section, so that others may benefit
thanks for ur effort to explain it.
Sent from my GT-I9500 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Hi,
I can't agree more...
Great explanation! You had me at "manufacturing tolerances". Everyone wants a perfect device, but humans are not.
+1
I tried to explain this once, but my post got buried so I gave up.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
ej8989 said:
Great explanation! You had me at "manufacturing tolerances". Everyone wants a perfect device, but humans are not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True. Im not happy if my device comes damaged or actually faulty, it will be RMA'd.
Im happy with my device. I don't care about light bleed that I have. It happens
-----------------------
Sent via tapatalk.
I do NOT reply to support queries over PM. Please keep support queries to the Q&A section, so that others may benefit
People make imaginary problems with their device and it manifests into some sort of "problem". Damage/faulty = RMA but otherwise they should learn on how to be contented. Google and whoever they partner with is not perfect. Even if they partner with others, still the same result; there would still be some sort of fault/negative side otherwise a very good phone with killer specs.
So what hardware version do you have?
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Good to know that I am not alone with this s/n madness.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using xda app-developers app
Good post, think when slightly tweaked version of the same phone comes out i.e bigger speaker holes etc people then think my phone needs to go back for exchange when it really probably doesn't.
Some people won't be happy until they RMA so many devices for b######t reasons that we pay full HTC and Samsung flagship prices for a Nexus. Even still they'll RMA as they probably did with phones from other manufacturers.
There is a YouTube video that shows a better sound/mic module.. it's probably in the newer models but didn't warrant a revised version number for whatever reasons.
I had a 311k revision 11 that had every problem in the book, weak noisy vibration motor, 3 dead pixels, rattling power button. I RMA'd and got another 311k revision 11. Guess what? Same phone, vibration motor vibrates as it should without being noisy, no dead pixels and buttons are all solid with no rattling!
Love this phone. Can't help but laugh about obsession over a serial number, do these folks do the same with all their devices? Maybe their new car has the wrong VIN, should they try to exchange it?
Sent from my Nexus 5 using xda premium
Thank you times 100 Mr. rootSU. If you have a faulty device, by all means return it. As for these people who keep returning perfectly good devices, one after another, thinking if only they return enough devices, eventually they'll win a "new and improved" phone in some mythical Nexus 5 lottery, cut it out. Seriously this behavior will have implications for all us. Google already sells the Nexus devices for basically zero profit in order to grow the Android user base and developer community. Google wants to keep their customers happy, but every time someone returns a device it eats into their bottom line as they obviously can't resell a used device as new. So what do you think they're going to do to recover the cost of excessive and unnecessary returns? They'll pass it off onto the consumer in the form higher hardware prices (do you want to pay $500 for the next Nexus?) and they'll revise their liberal return policy in order to deter excessive returning, thereby making the process more difficult and time-consuming for people who legitimately need a replacement device.
I've said a bunch of times on this forum and I'll say it one more time, there never was a hardware revision, there is only one version as per the revision number in the bootloader. The serial numbers vary depending on where and when the device was manufactured, and as you can see their are slight variations between products produced on different assembly lines. The machines may be calibrated differently from one line to another, some assembly lines have tighter quality control than others, etc. The bottom line is there exists only one revision. Even if at some point Google and LG do decide to revise the hardware, it doesn't entitle everyone who previously bought the device to a replacement. As long as you received a functional device, they're fulfilled their contractual and moral obligation. They don't have to replace previously purchased devices just because they come out with something better in the future. This is just the cost of early adoption. Like I said, if you receive a faulty device, by all means exchange it. If not, enjoy your device and be grateful that you can buy a top-of-the-line Android handset for $400 contract-free and carrier-unlocked.
Thread cleaned as requested... let's stay on-topic now please guys.
Finally someone else was tired of seeing these..
ALSO about stuff like "Why you picked N5 over XX phone" or "What you Like or Dont Like".... we dont need more then 1 thread.....
gd6noob said:
Finally someone else was tired of seeing these..
ALSO about stuff like "Why you picked N5 over XX phone" or "What you Like or Dont Like".... we dont need more then 1 thread.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The N5 versus G2 got dirty wherein the OP should've started the fire by comparing the N5 and G2. With all these stupendous threads appearing, it makes me NOT want to buy the N5 simply because if I'm a simple user not interested in rooting, unlocking bootloader etc., I would've thought I WASTED my money in all this "imaginary" problems and even if I wasn't a simple user, it would still hinder me because the experiences felt so real...until you realize that turning off one app that you're not using fixes the damn problem.
#Preach
Clearly this is an unhealthy obsession. There's simply no reason to be this balls deep hung up on a hardware version. Our phones are meant for entertainment. Period. It sounds like these obsessed folks might actually have their priorities all out of whack. If we took a step back and realized that these blips (issues) are not relevant for what's going on in our lives. We can immediately disregard a tiny rattling problem nothing at all. Because its not. Nobody should define their life around a phone. Let's just have fun with our phones and let that be for what it is. Fun. Nothing more.
Regarding speaker holes....
Mindspin_311 said:
If the back cover is being injection molded, which is probably the case, then there could be an issue with the tooling in some form or fashion.
There could be an insert that is used to create those holes. So there is a possibility that the insert was manufactured improperly, and there is only one like that out there. So, every X phone gets larger holes. In the grand scheme of things, its not a big deal to someone who performs the QC. The specified tolerances could be so wide that a variation of that magnitude is still considered a pass.
If the material is slightly different, the mechanical properties could be to the point where the molded material shrinks or "cools" differently causing the holes to enlarge.
There is really no way in telling unless you get a hold of the person at Google/LG who designed the back cover and look at their CAD. Then compare to the tooling and parts themselves.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Last week I went to the DMV to get a new drivers license. In the process I needed to get my index finger printed. The technician tried and tried using some kind of an optical scanning device but failed to get an acceptable image. He mentioned that he's seen the same problem with others my age (late 60s) and blamed it on losing collagen. Seemed strange to me as I'd never heard of such a thing.
So I decided to do some research and found this (in a Scientific American article):
"...the elasticity of skin decreases with age, so a lot of senior citizens have prints that are difficult to capture. The ridges get thicker; the height between the top of the ridge and the bottom of the furrow gets narrow, so there's less prominence."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lose-your-fingerprints/
While I now understand, figuring out my problem doesn't solve it.
I haven't looked in a while--did anyone ever locate the fountain of youth?
Just another cruel joke to make getting old suck even more.
It also might be caused by doing dishes alot.
Sometimes if you do the dished so much the scanner cant read it even the scanner for making a passport may not be able to
Thought this might help me with my missing password and correct fingerprint files, but no.
However, I have this to say you're proably better off without the stupid scanner
Yeah man, the scanner BLOWS.
Simple - as - that!
Mine packed up after unlocking and updating firmware - backup password doesn't work either. Actually, I think it's probably less annoying to not be able to access it, then to access it. Seriously, if it doesn't work 99.99% of the time it's bloody annoying. All these people saying yeah but it works every 8 or 9 out of ten... WTF? Seriously, if I had to double press my laptop or car every tenth time I'd take it back to the manufacturer.
Welcome to the new and more expensive samsung - NOT. I'm done with you after this latest phone. It'll be a Xiao mi or a one plus 2 for me. Almost looking forward to having this one stolen or broken so I can justify the change to my wife...
rabilancia said:
Last week I went to the DMV to get a new drivers license. In the process I needed to get my index finger printed. The technician tried and tried using some kind of an optical scanning device but failed to get an acceptable image. He mentioned that he's seen the same problem with others my age (late 60s) and blamed it on losing collagen. Seemed strange to me as I'd never heard of such a thing.
So I decided to do some research and found this (in a Scientific American article):
"...the elasticity of skin decreases with age, so a lot of senior citizens have prints that are difficult to capture. The ridges get thicker; the height between the top of the ridge and the bottom of the furrow gets narrow, so there's less prominence."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lose-your-fingerprints/
While I now understand, figuring out my problem doesn't solve it.
I haven't looked in a while--did anyone ever locate the fountain of youth?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds cool! Now you can start a life of crime and get away with it!
Before I go to sleep I put my phone on wireless charger. I wake up in the morning and it show unlock using passcode. No fingerprint or face unlock. Is there any way to disable this?
stephanstricker said:
Before I go to sleep I put my phone on wireless charger. I wake up in the morning and it show unlock using passcode. No fingerprint or face unlock. Is there any way to disable this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK, it is now mandatory that once in a while, you have to unlock the phone with passcode. When it will ask for the passcode varies. I have no idea why everyday at a particular time (or an event) your phone is asking for it. In my case, it varies. And I don't think that it is possible to disable it and I have not come across any post regarding this.
Don't know if this would work. Lol, I stopped at Android 10 like the Road Runner does when he spots a Wylie Coyote trap ahead.
Never set/use any locks on my N10+'s; double tap on/off. Don't even know if the fingerprint sensors work, never tried it
Typically you only need to enter passcode on boot, or restart. Is your phone rebooting during charge? You can check your uptime in 'about phone'.
I use a trusted place (home) with Smartlock. The verbiage says "Your phone will stay unlocked for up to 4 hours or until you leave one of your trusted places." Apparently the toilet isn't trusted and hours become minutes because taking a leak is all it takes to lock the phone.
Its so that when the FBI raids you in the early hours of the morning, they can't force you to unlock it with your face or fingerprint. Password/pin is knowledge based security and therefore protected by the 5th amendment.
96carboard said:
Its so that when the FBI raids you in the early hours of the morning, they can't force you to unlock it with your face or fingerprint. Password/pin is knowledge based security and therefore protected by the 5th amendment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't decided this specific issue. In 2020, the Supreme Court of New Jersey actually ruled that the 5th Amendment does not protect a person from being compelled to giving up their memorized password or pin. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court but they refused to hear it.
Although the majority of lower courts tend to rule the 5th Amendment does provide this protection, not all do and until the U.S. Supreme Court finally weighs in on this specific issue, the law remains uncertain.
Imagine this is for security reasons. Personally think this is a small price to keep the device safe. Afterall, these days, so much personal data is accessed via mobiles e.g. government apps, bank authentication etc
I don't think this increases my security at all. Finger print sensor are safe enough for me and on ios I never enter my pin unless I restart the device. If somebody has to guard his phone by the 5th amendment you got some serious issues.
stephanstricker said:
I don't think this increases my security at all. Finger print sensor are safe enough for me and on ios I never enter my pin unless I restart the device. If somebody has to guard his phone by the 5th amendment you got some serious issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd say anytime the FBI comes a knocking at your door at any hour a pin is the least of your concerns. But to your point, whether or not you occasionally need to put in a pin shouldn't bother you all that much. Maybe it increases security a smidge and maybe not but it takes under 2 seconds so just do it and forget it. IOS is a horse of another color so there's not much to compare. And we're certainly not going down that road in this thread. Sometimes I wonder what triggers it since it seems so random to me too.
The only real security is physical possession.
I guard my phone like my wallet. I don't leave it lying around. I don't flash it or use it when my mind needs to be in real time mode.
Many people are undisciplined and street stupid as hell. Many times that ineptness costs them a lot... eventually. At that moment those cute little security features are too little, too late.
Lughnasadh said:
Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't decided this specific issue. In 2020, the Supreme Court of New Jersey actually ruled that the 5th Amendment does not protect a person from being compelled to giving up their memorized password or pin. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court but they refused to hear it.
Although the majority of lower courts tend to rule the 5th Amendment does provide this protection, not all do and until the U.S. Supreme Court finally weighs in on this specific issue, the law remains uncertain.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The FACT that it "hasn't decided this specific issue" means that biometrics are NOT protected by the 5th amendment. In order for it to be protected by 5th amendment REQUIRES the decision to actually be made. In fact, even if the decision is made to protect biometrics under the 5th amendment, you should STILL take the appropriate precautions to protect yourself, since it is well established that not all law enforcement agencies or officers completely respect the law. Its much harder to force you to divulge data than to hold you down physically and force you to touch the sensor!
96carboard said:
The FACT that it "hasn't decided this specific issue" means that biometrics are NOT protected by the 5th amendment. In order for it to be protected by 5th amendment REQUIRES the decision to actually be made. In fact, even if the decision is made to protect biometrics under the 5th amendment, you should STILL take the appropriate precautions to protect yourself, since it is well established that not all law enforcement agencies or officers completely respect the law. Its much harder to force you to divulge data than to hold you down physically and force you to touch the sensor!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First of all, you mentioned nothing about biometrics in your original post. You were talking about password/pin unlock methods. You said:
"Password/pin is knowledge based security and therefore protected by the 5th amendment."
This is the specific issue I was talking about and responded to. I never mentioned anything about biometrics. And by your own reasoning ("In order for it to be protected by 5th amendment REQUIRES the decision to be made."), that would mean password/pins are not protected by the 5th Amendment since the Supreme Court has not actually made a decision on this issue, thus contradicting your own original statement above that "Password/pin is knowledge based security and therefore protected by the 5th amendment").
Secondly, just because the Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on a specific right doesn't mean that right is not protected by the Constitution. We have 12 (actually 13) Circuit Court of Appeals here. They can decide the constitutionality of an issue without the Supreme Court weighing in. And unless the Supreme Court weighs in, their rulings control in their specific jurisdiction. And if all agree on whether a right is or is not protected by the constitution, that ruling effectively makes it the law of the land unless the Supreme Court decides to weigh in and overrule those decisions. And in fact, the Supreme Court often does not weigh in on the rulings of the Court of Appeals, especially when they are all in agreement, thus leaving those rulings controlling. Therefore, it is not correct when you say "In order for it to be protected by 5th amendment REQUIRES the decision (by the Supreme Court) to actually be made.".
It's when the lower courts are in disagreement that leads to uncertainty. A right could be protected in one jurisdiction but not another, as is the case with this issue. That's when the Supreme Court should take on a case and decide the issue so there is no uncertainty as to what the law is across the land. However, they don't always do this. As I mentioned earlier, they decided not to do this when the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided that the 5th Amendment does not protect a person from being compelled to give up their password or pin.
Lughnasadh said:
First of all, you mentioned nothing about biometrics in your original post. You were talking about password/pin unlock methods. You said:
"Password/pin is knowledge based security and therefore protected by the 5th amendment."
This is the specific issue I was talking about and responded to. I never mentioned anything about biometrics. And by your own reasoning ("In order for it to be protected by 5th amendment REQUIRES the decision to be made."), that would mean password/pins are not protected by the 5th Amendment since the Supreme Court has not actually made a decision on this issue, thus contradicting your own original statement above that "Password/pin is knowledge based security and therefore protected by the 5th amendment").
Secondly, just because the Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on a specific right doesn't mean that right is not protected by the Constitution. We have 12 (actually 13) Circuit Court of Appeals here. They can decide the constitutionality of an issue without the Supreme Court weighing in. And unless the Supreme Court weighs in, their rulings control in their specific jurisdiction. And if all agree on whether a right is or is not protected by the constitution, that ruling effectively makes it the law of the land unless the Supreme Court decides to weigh in and overrule those decisions. And in fact, the Supreme Court often does not weigh in on the rulings of the Court of Appeals, especially when they are all in agreement, thus leaving those rulings controlling. Therefore, it is not correct when you say "In order for it to be protected by 5th amendment REQUIRES the decision (by the Supreme Court) to actually be made.".
It's when the lower courts are in disagreement that leads to uncertainty. A right could be protected in one jurisdiction but not another, as is the case with this issue. That's when the Supreme Court should take on a case and decide the issue so there is no uncertainty as to what the law is across the land. However, they don't always do this. As I mentioned earlier, they decided not to do this when the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided that the 5th Amendment does not protect a person from being compelled to give up their password or pin.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are mistaken about things. The only thing up in the air is biometric security. Knowledge based security is protected.
96carboard said:
You are mistaken about things. The only thing up in the air is biometric security. Knowledge based security is protected.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not mistaken. And I just cited an example for you. In New Jersey (State v. Robert Andrews) you can be compelled to disclose your password and pin to your phone and computer. The court used the "foregone conclusion" exception to the testimonial act of production requirement to reach this decision. Other courts may use the same reasoning. So to make a blanket statement that "Knowledge based security is protected." is just false. It depends on the jurisdiction the action takes place in and whether it's in federal or state court.
Held: "For the reasons set forth above, neither federal nor state protections against compelled disclosure shield Andrews’s passcodes. We therefore affirm the Order of the Appellate Division compelling Andrews’s disclosure of the passcodes to his cellphones seized consistent with the trial court’s order of production, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings."--Supreme Court of New Jersey
Be interested to know if it were possible to wipe and reflash the phone (in an emergency) by entering a "special pin" instead of your actual pin.
Sorry to awaken a dead thread, but I just noticed something on my P7 that my be relevant. Until about a week ago I was using fingerprint unlock only, and my phone would occasionally ask for a password unlock at random times, but generally not first thing in the morning. Last week I added face unlock, and my phone started asking for the password EVERY morning. Yesterday I deleted the face unlock and went back to fingerprint only, and this morning my P7 DIDN’T ask for password unlock. Seems that when it asks for a password depends on what kind of biometrics you set up. Guess it makes sense.
It is my usual practice to turn off my mobile before going to bed. That way, sleep is uninterrupted. When the phone is restarted the next day, the password is required to unlock the phone. Personally think this is a good safety feature. Consider how vital our mobiles are to daily life these days e.g. digital ID, banking authentication, email, contacts etc. Password entry seems a small price to keep data safe.
Just my 2 cents.