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.
Related
Ok, so I figured this would be the best place to post this. This directly relates to EVERYONE here.
If this lawsuit gets passed we are ALL screwed. Essentially, Sony is trying to get a case passed against some security researchers that have been able to "jailbreak", "root", "reimage" their PS3s so that they can once again put an "OtherOS" on like when they originally released. BUT, they are not stopping their, they are trying to get a precedent passed that would allow a device manufacturer to bring legal actions against people for modifying their devices AFTER they have purchased them. Meaning, in our case, if you buy a phone and modify the OS from exactly what the manufacturer has "approved" YOU are committing a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
I SAY "F-YOU SONY!!!"
This is directly from the EFF, Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you are unaware of who they are or what they do I stress to everyone here that you learn a little about them from www.eff.org.
January 19th, 2011
Sony v. Hotz: Sony Sends A Dangerous Message to Researchers -- and Its Customers
Commentary
Co-authored by Corynne McSherry and Marcia Hofmann
For years, EFF has been warning that the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act can be used to chill speech, particularly security research, because legitimate researchers will be afraid to publish their results lest they be accused of circumventing a technological protection measure. We've also been concerned that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could be abused to try to make alleged contract violations into crimes.
We've never been sorrier to be right. These two things are precisely what's happening in Sony v. Hotz. If you have missed this one, Sony has sued several security researchers for publishing information about security holes in Sony’s PlayStation 3. At first glance, it's hard to see why Sony is bothering — after all, the research was presented three weeks ago at the Chaos Communication Congress and promptly circulated around the world. The security flaws discovered by the researchers allow users to run Linux on their machines again — something Sony used to support but recently started trying to prevent. Paying lawyers to try to put the cat back in the bag is just throwing good money after bad. And even if they won — we'll save the legal analysis for another post — the defendants seem unlikely to be able to pay significant damages. So what's the point?
The real point, it appears, is to send a message to security researchers around the world: publish the details of our security flaws and we'll come after you with both barrels blazing. For example, Sony has asked the court to immediately impound all "circumvention devices" — which it defines to include not only the defendants' computers, but also all "instructions," i.e., their research and findings. Given that the research results Sony presumably cares about are available online, granting the order would mean that everyone except the researchers themselves would have access to their work.
Not content with the DMCA hammer, Sony is also bringing a slew of outrageous Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims. The basic gist of Sony's argument is that the researchers accessed their own PlayStation 3 consoles in a way that violated the agreement that Sony imposes on users of its network (and supposedly enabled others to do the same). But the researchers don't seem to have used Sony's network in their research — they just used the consoles they bought with their own money. Simply put, Sony claims that it's illegal for users to access their own computers in a way that Sony doesn't like. Moreover, because the CFAA has criminal as well as civil penalties, Sony is actually saying that it's a crime for users to access their own computers in a way that Sony doesn't like.
That means Sony is sending another dangerous message: that it has rights in the computer it sells you even after you buy it, and therefore can decide whether your tinkering with that computer is legal or not. We disagree. Once you buy a computer, it's yours. It shouldn't be a crime for you to access your own computer, regardless of whether Sony or any other company likes what you're doing.
Finally, even if the researchers had used Sony's network, Sony's claim that it's a crime to violate its terms of use has been firmly rejected by courts in cases like United States v. Drew and Facebook v. Power Ventures. As those courts have recognized, companies like Sony would have tremendous coercive power if they could enforce their private, unilateral and easy-to-change agreements with threats of criminal punishment.
Sony's core arguments — that it can silence speech that reveals security flaws using the DMCA and that the mere fact of a terms of use somewhere gives a company permanent and total control over what you do with a device under pain of criminal punishment — are both sweeping and frightening, and not just for gamers and computer researchers. Frankly, it's not what we expect from any company that cares about its customers, and we bet it's not what those customers expect, either.
Attachment Size
Sony_Complaint.PDF 2.59 MB
Sony_Motion_For_TRO.pdf 207.03 KB
Related Issues: Coders' Rights Project, DMCA, Free Speech, Innovation, Terms Of (Ab)Use
Related Cases: Facebook v. Power Ventures, US v. Drew
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
looks like they wont be releasing the bootloader for the x10 any time soon....
Next thing you know car manufactures will be trying to get legal approval so if somebody modifies the car in anyway they will be committing criminal offense.........yeah right! lol
But seriously, we pay so much money for a device and not being able to modify it freely is just dumb. Personally I would sell those devices and not bother to buy any anymore since I wouldn't want to support such a company with such a attitude.
I think it is kinda fun.
As I jumped to the page I had been logged out and what was the add that was displayed in my original post??
Discounts on PS3s, games, and move. Ironic, dontchya think??
LOL
Actually even if sony wins it will only apply to consoles (for now), but if they lose the legal precedent will be changed from allowing mobile phones (a closed system) to be modified to allowing game consoles, mobile phones, and who knows what else. This is a bit of old news if you keep up on the psp/ps3 scene though but still interesting and at times funny. If you guys want to see the guy in question here http://www.ps3-hacks.com/2011/01/14/attack-of-the-show-with-geohot/ it's the same guy who jailbroke the iphone for the first time. He beat apple before, now let's see sony go down and even more systems open up legally.
But seriously, we pay so much money for a device and not being able to modified freely is just dumb.
start getting use to it now
it used to be that the huge companies couldnt stop people from hacking, so they just kept tabs on it and used the threat of losing your account as 'leverage'.
now that they have the upper hand, the law will work with them much more.
sony always had the updates trick. again, they couldnt stop people hacking, but the hackers couldnt hide it either, so a new update messed up your hacks and sometimes your device.
now they are gonna give you all hell...
you think sony wants you to play your own mp3s and watch your own videos???
if sony had the power to stop you eating food that you didnt buy through playstation, they would happily watch you starve to death.
its the entertainment industry. key word: industry, ie, to make money.
if they made a better device, with more fair options instead of trying to milk everyone dry, then they would gain so much from the people like me (and millions others) that dont want to give them our money because they are ****s.
I bet they'd make a lot more money if they allowed modifications, and supported them (for a price!)
wow... if they did that android devices would go extinct... theyre barely functional without mods
You guys are missing the point. If sony wins it only applies to systems not already in the DMCA which right now says "mobile phones". We're safe regardless unless you're also into console/handheld modding. Sony is just throwing a hissy-fit because their security got bent over a barrel.
I though people jailbroke the PS3 so they can play PS2 games because, you know, the PS3 can't do that.
j/k I think this is a bad move by Sony. How is jailbreaking a console any different than jaibreaking a mobile phone? Someone please explain that to me.
kizzmyanthia said:
...they are trying to get a precedent passed that would allow a device manufacturer to bring legal actions against people for modifying their devices AFTER they have purchased them. Meaning, in our case, if you buy a phone and modify the OS from exactly what the manufacturer has "approved" YOU are committing a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what if i steal a phone, and modify it, or if someone gives it to me as a gift
corporation > human
so
money > human
thats how it is nowdays
btw didnt apple try the same thing with jb-ing and they ruled jb is legal but voids warranty at the end ?
are u some apple fanboy or ur head just got pulled out of something warm and moisty ?
souljaboy said:
corporation > human
so
money > human
thats how it is nowdays
btw didnt apple try the same thing with jb-ing and they ruled jb is legal but voids warranty at the end ?
are u some apple fanboy or ur head just got pulled out of something warm and moisty ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Methinks the jailbreak precedent makes it impossible for Sony to get any traction in this case. The jailbreak precedent has been set in stone and the judges have already tossed out cases involving jailbreaks.
The only winners in this case will be lawyers.
sakai4eva said:
Methinks the jailbreak precedent makes it impossible for Sony to get any traction in this case. The jailbreak precedent has been set in stone and the judges have already tossed out cases involving jailbreaks.
The only winners in this case will be lawyers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thankfully you're right. This has been covered by the cydia case.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Forgive me if this thread is out of place. I mean everything I say with the greatest respect for omnirom's devs and users.
I found out about omnirom recently. I was struck by its motto: "Omni isn’t better, just different." There has to be a better reason to go to the trouble of building a rom that's only going to be slightly different from AOSP or Cyanogenmod.
I want to make a suggestion. As a new android rom, why not fill a need in the community instead of saying, we've got nothing better to offer you, only something different. Novelty wears off and people want more than just "different" from their operating systems.
Can I suggest a huge glaring need in the Android rom space that no major mod is filling? Security and Privacy.
The NSA and other intelligence agencies and corporations are launching attacks on people. Even Google is doing that. Months after I got my new android device, I was shocked when I found that Android was uploading all my contacts and other data to google's servers without asking me.
Read this article (Ars Technica: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary) to see how Google is making a walled garden with Android.
With 4.4, Google seems to be going even further. They won't stop. Google is using android as a trojan horse to collect information from people and sell it. Facebook is also doing it. The NSA is doing it.
Is there anybody out there who respects people and their privacy any more? I can't think of any major rom that does it.
Omnirom has xplodwild, Dees_Troy and Chainfire and many other talented developers, but why is the only thing they offer us a slightly different rom?!
We techsavvy people want more from our roms than that. Our pressing need in this day and age is not split screen apps. We're being constantly spied on by everybody and being monetised by everyone. What about end-to-end email security via Mailpile and the Dark Mail alliance? What about the Freedombox project?
Omnirom's description says, "Omni is what custom ROMs used to be about – innovation, new features, transparency, community, and freedom." Every android rom innovates new features and they're all open source because Android is open source. Most of them have a community focus. How is Omnirom any different?
Every project needs a reason to exist. I can't see omnirom's reason for existence.
There is a lack of respect for people by governments and corporations. They seek to use us or buy and sell us. Omnirom has the chance to fill a need in FOSS android world: A rom that respects and protects the data and the individual from legalized spying.
Let me respectfully ask this question. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to put all your talents to something useful and filling a need in the android world instead of being another flavour of stock Android?
Hoodahottie said:
Forgive me if this thread is out of place. I mean everything I say with the greatest respect for omnirom's devs and users.
I found out about omnirom recently. I was struck by its motto: "Omni isn’t better, just different." There has to be a better reason to go to the trouble of building a rom that's only going to be slightly different from AOSP or Cyanogenmod.
I want to make a suggestion. As a new android rom, why not fill a need in the community instead of saying, we've got nothing better to offer you, only something different. Novelty wears off and people want more than just "different" from their operating systems.
Can I suggest a huge glaring need in the Android rom space that no major mod is filling? Security and Privacy.
The NSA and other intelligence agencies and corporations are launching attacks on people. Even Google is doing that. Months after I got my new android device, I was shocked when I found that Android was uploading all my contacts and other data to google's servers without asking me.
Read this article (Ars Technica: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary) to see how Google is making a walled garden with Android.
With 4.4, Google seems to be going even further. They won't stop. Google is using android as a trojan horse to collect information from people and sell it. Facebook is also doing it. The NSA is doing it.
Is there anybody out there who respects people and their privacy any more? I can't think of any major rom that does it.
Omnirom has xplodwild, Dees_Troy and Chainfire and many other talented developers, but why is the only thing they offer us a slightly different rom?!
We techsavvy people want more from our roms than that. Our pressing need in this day and age is not split screen apps. We're being constantly spied on by everybody and being monetised by everyone. What about end-to-end email security via Mailpile and the Dark Mail alliance? What about the Freedombox project?
Omnirom's description says, "Omni is what custom ROMs used to be about – innovation, new features, transparency, community, and freedom." Every android rom innovates new features and they're all open source because Android is open source. Most of them have a community focus. How is Omnirom any different?
Every project needs a reason to exist. I can't see omnirom's reason for existence.
There is a lack of respect for people by governments and corporations. They seek to use us or buy and sell us. Omnirom has the chance to fill a need in FOSS android world: A rom that respects and protects the data and the individual from legalized spying.
Let me respectfully ask this question. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to put all your talents to something useful and filling a need in the android world instead of being another flavour of stock Android?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Something that perhaps doesn't come across when reading about Omni is about our thoughts on security and privacy. I'm one of the loudest complainers about the actions of a few companies (Google being the main one), who are using Android as a platform to spy on people.
Make no mistake, Omni will seek to address that. One issue the community faces though is that it is currently at the ebb and whim of Google. If Google decide to do X, pretty much every custom ROM has no real choice other than to follow. The aim of Omni is to offer an alternative "upstream" to look towards, when you find out that Google has started to call home every inbound phone number that it doesn't "recognise", in order to find out if it's a company from Google Maps/Local... And presumably log that forever more with your account...
This is a timely question with a very reassuring response. There is F-Droid instead of PlayStore (but it tends to be a few months behind) and OsmAnd instead of Maps (which is better in some ways). I would like to see more in this direction too.
IMO unless your a spy or a criminal I don't see why someone would care about all that NSA stuff.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
pulser_g2 said:
Something that perhaps doesn't come across when reading about Omni is about our thoughts on security and privacy. I'm one of the loudest complainers about the actions of a few companies (Google being the main one), who are using Android as a platform to spy on people.
Make no mistake, Omni will seek to address that. One issue the community faces though is that it is currently at the ebb and whim of Google. If Google decide to do X, pretty much every custom ROM has no real choice other than to follow. The aim of Omni is to offer an alternative "upstream" to look towards, when you find out that Google has started to call home every inbound phone number that it doesn't "recognise", in order to find out if it's a company from Google Maps/Local... And presumably log that forever more with your account...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you thinking of implementing off the shelf carddav / caldav syncing? Instead of syncing with Google for calendar and contacts, you can sync with any other source (like ownCloud).
Something that Davdroid does.
I am using this setup on my own private Linux server the last few days and seems to work well.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk 4
jonathanxx1 said:
IMO unless your a spy or a criminal I don't see why someone would care about all that NSA stuff.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately, this is the biggest problem that the security industry (ie. people like me) face, in trying to explain the issues here.
Here's a small example, to show you the problems, not specifically with the NSA, but with anything "cloud". Let's imagine a malicious attacker is going after you...
Let's look at your gmail account. It's likely that you signed up for it with your old Hotmail account (the previously most common type of email service). Most people did. It's also likely that you protect your Gmail account fairly well, but have likely not changed your Hotmail password in a while. That's likely the best way in for an attacker.
Now, before you say "OK, but what's the risk", let's take a look at what information is accessible to someone getting into your Google account.
Firstly, they know the details of all your android devices (IMEI etc) - they know what tablets you have, what phones you have, and their serial numbers and identifiers. They can also carry out a remote wipe on any of your devices via Mobile Device Manager. Let's come back to this later though
From Google Mail, they have a fair idea of what you're up to, based on your communications to other people. They can access your location history, and data-mine that, to figure out where you are. They can also look at your communications with other people via Hangouts and G+, and attempt to work out where you are (or simply use the GPS location). They can access the location sharing features of google's services, and see where you and your family are. They can see you're not at home (getting your address from an email), and go to your house, aware your kids are home alone, and rob the place, abducting them.
When you return home, you meet a scene of devastation. You take out your phone and call the cops. You call 911/999/112/whatever, but the call was intercepted and passed to the attackers, via software that was installed onto your phone remotely (via the play store's remote push system).
At this point, the attacker takes your phone, and puts you in the back of the van. He uses Google Device Manager, and removes the lockscreen password from your phone (via the forgot lockscreen code feature). This also resets your device encryption password to a known one. At this point, all the devices are turned off, and their SIMs removed, and you are driven to a remote location.
The attackers then call your partner (having got their number from your Google contacts), and demand $1 million, while telling your partner that you know they are currently in <name of place from their google shared location feature>. The same remote access toolkit is installed onto their phone (given they had used your email as a recovery email for their Google account), and this permits monitoring of their phone to check if they call 911 etc.
OK, that all sounds far-fetched, but that is all entirely possible. The sheer amount of data being held about you, by google and other cloud providers, is insane. I didn't even go into the possibility of financial theft here. Cellphones are a very important thing to people, and they often take them for granted. Would you consider that when you called 911 in a moment of need, that someone had remote-installed a piece of malicious software, which exploits an android security hole, to replace the dialer app, and route the call to a rogue attacker, pretending to be the emergency services?
The amount of control that "other people" have over a phone running "Google Apps" is immense. Don't just think about the "NSA" aspects of this - consider how devastating it would be if someone had access to your Google account. And now remember that anyone on the technical team of Google could (in theory) issue an access token to your account to a well-paying attacker...
Oh, and one of the best ways an attacker can get into your Google account is simply to steal a phone or tablet, and extract the Google authentication token. Sure, they might not be able to change your password, but they are now "into" the chain, and will be able to start the attack.
If this don't bother you, I don't know what will...
scanno said:
Are you thinking of implementing off the shelf carddav / caldav syncing? Instead of syncing with Google for calendar and contacts, you can sync with any other source (like ownCloud).
Something that Davdroid does.
I am using this setup on my own private Linux server the last few days and seems to work well.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I currently use {Card,Cal}dav syncing via my OwnCloud server. Thanks for the link to DavDroid, I'd not seen it before!
jonathanxx1 said:
IMO unless your a spy or a criminal I don't see why someone would care about all that NSA stuff.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's shocking that so many people don't (want to?) see the actual problem. The whole spying system is not just about tracking down terrorists.
Google, Facebook, etc and even governmental institutions collect our data to predict and influence our future actions.
So please devs, give us the option to be more independent from the big companies.
Gesendet von meinem Find 5 mit Tapatalk
I
pulser_g2 said:
I currently use {Card,Cal}dav syncing via my OwnCloud server. Thanks for the link to DavDroid, I'd not seen it before!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
DavDroid is a pretty nice solution and you can set it up for multiple accounts.
I am still looking for a good note taking app (using Evernote now) to sync with my OwnCloud server.
Do you have any suggestions for a sort of Evernote replacement that can sync with OwnCloud?
Sent from my Xperia T using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------
boernie said:
It's shocking that so many people don't (want to?) see the actual problem. The whole spying system is not just about tracking down terrorists.
Google, Facebook, etc and even governmental institutions collect our data to predict and influence our future actions.
So please devs, give us the option to be more independent from the big companies.
Gesendet von meinem Find 5 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For your calendar and contacts there are solutions already. Main problem is where so you store your data. You will need your own server or trusted third party.
Sent from my Xperia T using Tapatalk
I'm trying to set up my own infrastructure
But I was surprised that there was not out-of-the-box solution to use CardDav and CalDav.
Maybe you could include the apps mentioned above as they are/will become open source.
Gesendet von meinem Find 5 mit Tapatalk
scanno said:
I
DavDroid is a pretty nice solution and you can set it up for multiple accounts.
I am still looking for a good note taking app (using Evernote now) to sync with my OwnCloud server.
Do you have any suggestions for a sort of Evernote replacement that can sync with OwnCloud?
Sent from my Xperia T using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------
For your calendar and contacts there are solutions already. Main problem is where so you store your data. You will need your own server or trusted third party.
Sent from my Xperia T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've found a nice notepad app, but none yet that use OwnCloud sync.
I was thinking about looking into https://github.com/spacecowboy/NotePad and trying to get it working with the API. It would be fairly easy to remove the "closed" bits like Dropbox sync etc, and use the OwnCloud backend. It would also be nice to add proper encryption of notes later on.
Anyone else interested? (I hate android app coding, I can't even get the dependencies to resolve for it to build... Thus contributing to my dislike for ANYTHING java based)
pulser_g2 said:
Something that perhaps doesn't come across when reading about Omni is about our thoughts on security and privacy. I'm one of the loudest complainers about the actions of a few companies (Google being the main one), who are using Android as a platform to spy on people.
Make no mistake, Omni will seek to address that. One issue the community faces though is that it is currently at the ebb and whim of Google. If Google decide to do X, pretty much every custom ROM has no real choice other than to follow. The aim of Omni is to offer an alternative "upstream" to look towards, when you find out that Google has started to call home every inbound phone number that it doesn't "recognise", in order to find out if it's a company from Google Maps/Local... And presumably log that forever more with your account...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm thrilled to hear this! Do other omnirom devs share your opinion?
I know it's early, but does the omnirom team have specific security/privacy ideas they want to implement?
In the long run, I don't see the Android ecosystem remaining in one piece. It's going to fragment. Amazon has already done it. Samsung may make this move. And people who want privacy and secure communications need a rom (and perhaps it's own app ecosystem) to which they can turn.
Please think about changing your why omnirom page. Right now, its pitch is very weak. Add a section about privacy and security and people will flock to this rom.
boernie said:
It's shocking that so many people don't (want to?) see the actual problem. The whole spying system is not just about tracking down terrorists.
Google, Facebook, etc and even governmental institutions collect our data to predict and influence our future actions.
So please devs, give us the option to be more independent from the big companies.
Gesendet von meinem Find 5 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm absolutely shocked every time I hear people say this. So many people just dismiss the NSA spying because they're not terrorists. They don't have the imagination it takes to understand that today's citizen is tomorrow's terrorist. Every country that spied on it's citizens has oppressed them.
I'm not a spy or terrorist, but I don't want my every thought and action logged away to be used against me later.
boernie said:
I'm trying to set up my own infrastructure
But I was surprised that there was not out-of-the-box solution to use CardDav and CalDav.
Maybe you could include the apps mentioned above as they are/will become open source.
Gesendet von meinem Find 5 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't post links, but if you want your own secure cloud, look at the Freedombox project. It's Debian based and it has some radical ideas. Eben Moglen and Bdale garbee have worked on it since 2010. Eben Moglen's talk about countries spying on citizens came long before the NSA story came to light.
The website is kind of dead, but in August Bdale gave a talk where he said Freedombox 1.0 should come before 2014. It's on youtube.
boernie said:
It's shocking that so many people don't (want to?) see the actual problem. The whole spying system is not just about tracking down terrorists.
Google, Facebook, etc and even governmental institutions collect our data to predict and influence our future actions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a pretty simple solution to this!
Don't behave like expected.
Sent from my Find 5 using Tapatalk
Hoodahottie said:
Even Google is doing that. Months after I got my new android device, I was shocked when I found that Android was uploading all my contacts and other data to google's servers without asking me.
We techsavvy people want more
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With all due respect to the OP, the above is the major problem. While many of us are "tech savvy" to one degree or another, I think we forget how to read sometimes.
When you're given that stack of papers to sign for your mortgage, car loan, credit card or bank account, how many blindly sign where we are told to be the agent of that company? Do you read what you are signing? If you answer yes, why is setting up your phone any different? We are told that such and such information is going to be collected when we sign up for our Google accounts. We are told that additional information is going to be collected when we set up our phone. Every time we start up GPS services, we are told Google is going to use this data they collect.
This causes me to wonder why it takes people by surprise when they learn that Google isn't a computer hardware and software company, but a marketing company. And even more wonder happens when they mention it's without their knowledge. Reading terms of service is important. They spell out exactly what they are going to do and give you the option not to participate. When I worked for IBM in the 80's, I had to sign away any rights to technology I developed while working there (with the exception of anything I started before employment and listed on their agreement). If I didn't want to do that I was my choice to not work there. The same thing happened with Tricord, Wang, Computer Associates, MAI, Excactium, Pivotal, etc
The other response about the NSA is troubling as well. We elect our representatives in this country every two four or six years. How many of those people that you voted into office voted yes to the Patriot Act? You want some scary reading, research the rights we gave up allowing that to happen.
We are innocent until proven guilty. The NSA "spying" doesn't just ensnare terrorist, but easily the whole population of the USA. Their model of two, three and more levels of contact captures everyone. The real question isn't I'm not a terrorist so why does it matter, it is I'm not a terrorist so why are you doing it?
We setup up these phones with the knowledge we would be tracked. We walk down the street and see security cameras watching. Then we complain about it? We allowed it to happen to have a whiz bang new phone or to feel safer.
" Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
I work in retail. Every year I hear people complain that we set Christmas stuff too early. Those same people are buying their lights, cards and trees in the same visit. If they didn't buy early, we wouldn't set early. If we truly cared about not being used as marketing data, we wouldn't be using these phones. We wouldn't use Google.com to search. We wouldn't re-elect many of those in office at the local state and federal levels.
Sorry for the rant, I'll step of the soapbox and allow this discussion to get back on track.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
With no disrespect, I wonder if people who ask me to take full responsibility understand life and power.
I understand that I have to take some responsibility for signing on for services and programs, but I blame the government and corporations more because they are many times richer and more powerful than me.
And they take advantage of that.
How many Terms of service agreements have I had to sign to use internet services? If I really read all of their ToS, I wouldn't have time for anything else. I'll bet that the ceos of these companies haven't read the ToS of their own products. They don't have to because they have the money to hire 50 of the best lawyers and ask them to craft a bullet-proof ToS.
They probably spent tens of thousands of dollars on the ToS. And I stand against all of that money and power, with limited time and resources and no law degree. Am I the one to be blamed? They know I'm tired from work, that I don't have a legal background and my attention span is limited and I need this product, and there is no other choice unless I'm willing to suffer a lot.
Often these multinational corporations control the whole market and I don't really have any choice. Look at the phone OS market now. I can choose between Android, iOS or Windows Phone. My choices are an open source OS built to facilitate spying, an overpriced, closed source, simplistic OS built by a company that co-operates with the NSA or a closed source, proprietary phone from an industry giant accused of anti-competitive behaviour and also collaborating with the NSA.
There's no real choice. Not just in the phone industry, but in most places in life. Powerful people don't become powerful by giving everyone else choices and freedom. They take freedom away. You ask me to take responsibility as if I had another, better choice. Apple, Google and Microsoft ToS will be mostly similar and it'll always protect their interests. There are no other real choices. It's always been that way, and why I blame the government, corporations and powerful people more than myself.
To really win, I'd have to devote my life to fighting all these powerful forces and even if I win, I'll have to spend the rest of my life defending against other crooks who'd try to do the same thing. I wouldn't have any time left for a life.
"You ask me to take responsibility as if I had another, better choice."
Who else is responsible for your actions?
"Apple, Google and Microsoft ToS will be mostly similar and it'll always protect their interests. There are no other real choices."
Yes, these companies are in business to make money. That is no different than you having a job to make money.
But do not tell me you or Bill or Steve or Larry do not have à choice. Ever heard of CP/M? An Altair? AltaVista? If you haven't, here is some history.
CP/M was a dominant operating system before DOS. Bill Gates made a choice to create Altair Basic for the Altair microcomputer being sold mail-order. That was the start of Micro-Soft (now Microsoft). He made another choice to create MS-DOS to compete against CP/M for the IBM PC and clones. He made another choice to start work on Windows to compete against Apple's graphical interfaces and IBM's TopView.
Before Steve Jobs made the choice to sell Woz's garage built microcomputer (later named the Apple) there was the Altair mentioned above. They made a choice to build an alternative.
Larry Page and Sergey Brin made the choice to start Google, thinking they could do search better than AltaVista, Yahoo, Excite, HotBot, MetaCrawler, etc.
Powerful people become powerful many times by giving others alternatives. The above mentioned powerful people are examples.
We can make the choice to use prepaid basic phones and not worry about anyone watching us because you don't use personal information to activate.
"To really win, I'd have to devote my life to fighting all these powerful forces"
You should. Doing so makes you powerful. Recently two women changed how one of the world's largest food brands makes their products. One of them eventually dropped out of the spot light and it became the crusade of ONE woman. Kraft Foods is changing how they make some of their Mac and Cheese products due to the efforts of one individual. No more Yellow #5 in their Mac and Cheese products specifically marketed at children. That was a choice she made. A fight that became part of her life.
We all have choices. We are all responsible for our own actions. We can't blame government as a whole because they are largely elected by us. We work to make money to live the life we choose. Corporations (started by individuals) do the same thing.
Sorry again for diverting off topic, but I have a difficult time with responsibility shifting to account for mistakes. We all make them (this reply is probably one of mine). A wise person once said, the man who makes no mistake, usually doesn't make anything worthwhile.
This particular set of threads, all the Omni threads, are what make communities like this work. We can voice opinions, state facts, help with commands to build a repository, compile a kernel, even agree to disagree.
This is how XDA started, while maybe some sections have stayed from the roots, Omni has brought it back full circle.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
jonathanxx1 said:
IMO unless your a spy or a criminal I don't see why someone would care about all that NSA stuff.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You may want to skim through this: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842
Some laws (in many? all? countries) are so loosely worded that you're probably breaking some of them right now. Now remember that the government/google/facebook/whoever is watching everything you do. If you ever become "a problem" you're not going to be too difficult to "deal with". Just a potential look at one of the many problems with complete surveillance.
You guys talk about this as if Google, Facebook and all these companies willingly gave up this information.
But the reality is this: the government (NSA) asks for the data. If the companies deny them this, the NSA then goes to obtain a generalized warrant from the FISA courts, secret courts with a 99.7% warrant approval rate, and then obtain the data regardless of what these companies want.
And for those of you who STILL think it's the companies, read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...1d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html
---------- Post added at 10:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------
And yes, these companies DO own your data. As soon as you click "I accept these terms" on the registration page, they are now the owners of everything that goes through their online services.
But, here's the catch. Companies are individuals too, as established in Citizens United v. FCC, and are protected under the same rights as any other individual. And it logically follows that because of this, it is a breach on each company's 4th amendment rights for the NSA to obtain generalized warrants, that list NO goal for the investigation, and use these in order to force each company to fork over account details among other things.
frustration pure
one of the most common arguments of those who don't care or don't want to face the
risks of others knowing anything or almost everything of us is:
i have nothing to hide so what !
now to make a point i would like to come up with a very simple and for many
perhaps a bit strange example but i think most will understand what i mean.
ALBEIT I'M ALLOWED TO MAKE LOVE TO MY WIFE AND IT'S TOTALLY LEGAL
AND RIGHT, I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO LISTEN OR WATCH :laugh:
UNDERSTOOD ?
regards
+1
I've been lurking and decided to give my opinion. First though, let me give a little background. Two years ago I bought my first Nexus and I rooted it right away. I left the bootloader unlocked, the CWM recovery installed, and USB debugging left on. Any app that could log me in automatically I allowed...Ebay, Amazon, Gmail, etc. I thought I was doing a good job protecting my privacy by using a strong password lock and installing Lookout.
I had no idea how easy it was to gain access to all of my data. My ignorance would not have protected me. Now to today. I have a rooted phone, but the bootloader is locked with the stock recovery installed. I will install a custom rom when a good one is available, but the stock recovery will be re-flashed and the bootloader locked when I'm done. I still use Lookout. I'm using LastPass to manage unique strong passwords now...no more saving passwords. I'm waiting for ADB Toggle to be fixed for Kitkat and USB Debugging will be turned off when my phone plugs into a computer. I am constantly looking for ways to protect my data.
To have total convenience, you must give up privacy and security. To have total privacy and security, you must give up convenience. I know that google has access to EVERYTHING I do with my phone and am not happy about it. I try to be informed and balance convenience, privacy, and security.
:good: I second the suggestion that OmniROM should attempt to become the ROM for people who want to protect their privacy and security. :good: There is a lot that can be done at the operating system level that cannot be performed by individual apps. Sure, I love all the features that custom ROMs offer and look forward to see what can be done, but privacy and security are #1 for me.
If you agree, then +1 this post.
Anyone know anything about this?
http://www.goandroid.co.in/samsung-galaxy-s5-update-brings-performance-tweaks/37180/
quordandis said:
Anyone know anything about this?
http://www.goandroid.co.in/samsung-galaxy-s5-update-brings-performance-tweaks/37180/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm curious about this too. I've been checking the updater and theres no software update available.
The screenshots in that article are for the Canadian variant -- G900W8.
It'll probably take a while for any update to get "certified" by the big @, plus I think I'm going to avoid doing software and security policy updates in case an exploit for this current version is found.
smknutson said:
It'll probably take a while for any update to get "certified" by the big @, plus I think I'm going to avoid doing software and security policy updates in case an exploit for this current version is found.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to wonder how many full-time employees AT&T and Samsung have that do nothing but monitor the web (mostly XDA) for whatever goes on here at XDA so they can react to any potential important discoveries, mods, or developments.
scott14719 said:
I have to wonder how many full-time employees AT&T and Samsung have that do nothing but monitor the web (mostly XDA) for whatever goes on here at XDA so they can react to any potential important discoveries, mods, or developments.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For the longest time I have thought this..............
I thought I was the only one...
I too also thought this....it had occurred to me that it would be particularly clever and prudent to have your finger on the pulse of your "power users", but then it occurred to me that because it's such a smart idea, they're guaranteed NOT to do it (keeping in line with they're history). So that's my logic....
As nefarious as that sounds, it's almost guaranteed that the engineering portions of Sammy/AT&T that are responsible for security monitor forums and social media such as this. Probably even have moles portraying themselves as ignorant users.
smknutson said:
As nefarious as that sounds, it's almost guaranteed that the engineering portions of Sammy/AT&T that are responsible for security monitor forums and social media such as this. Probably even have moles portraying themselves as ignorant users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure that engineers look at XDA and other developer/user forums out of interest or even as part of the job; but unless something directly affects Samsung or AT&T in a manner that is costing them a significant amount of money I doubt any action is made in response. Remember these are corporations, money/time is not spent chasing a relatively few users who choose modify their phones, even if it is to evade fees and/or modify a locked feature. It just doesn't make a large financial difference.
Apple certainly pursued a cease and desist strategy but I think that was mostly out of a control freak corporate culture. Other than tethering for free,what do rooting and custom ROMs actually cost AT&T or Samsung? We still buy their phones loyally and pay for the service. If it mattered enough they would take greater steps to lock stuff down, or routinely push updates to secure their devices when exploits are found.
Just my take on it - I'm a pretty paranoid dude but not in this regard. We just don't matter much to them.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2721505
I know the qualcomm guys look. Lol
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
TOA Duck said:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2721505
I know the qualcomm guys look. Lol
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the sad thing is all those files and scripts wouldn't have provided us any solution to root or unlocking the boot loader, those were qualcomm scripts and files but only for signing the mbr/mbl nothing unfortunatley to do with unlocking it or rooting the device in any manor, the certs may have been helpfull in tricking odin in to believing a custom rom was official is the only thing that i could actually see coming out of that.
and I was a little leary of the member in the first place, he offered no tangible proof that the scripts did anything all he did was list a directory of files, and when he was asked to provide proof that he actually rooted or unlocked a bootloader he refused to respond.
delawaredrew said:
I'm sure that engineers look at XDA and other developer/user forums out of interest or even as part of the job; but unless something directly affects Samsung or AT&T in a manner that is costing them a significant amount of money I doubt any action is made in response. Remember these are corporations, money/time is not spent chasing a relatively few users who choose modify their phones, even if it is to evade fees and/or modify a locked feature. It just doesn't make a large financial difference.
Apple certainly pursued a cease and desist strategy but I think that was mostly out of a control freak corporate culture. Other than tethering for free,what do rooting and custom ROMs actually cost AT&T or Samsung? We still buy their phones loyally and pay for the service. If it mattered enough they would take greater steps to lock stuff down, or routinely push updates to secure their devices when exploits are found.
Just my take on it - I'm a pretty paranoid dude but not in this regard. We just don't matter much to them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One thought. Samsung and Apple are both making big enterprise plays. My company in it's BYOD program is pushing Samsung hard over other Android phones because they are more locked down with corporate policies mandating encryption and forbidding rooting/jailbreaking coming soon to my employer, I can see how a locked down phone is more attractive to them and could lead to more sales, not yet.
We're not their only market, and in the grand scheme of things, there may be more money for them going this path.
stoobie-doo said:
One thought. Samsung and Apple are both making big enterprise plays. My company in it's BYOD program is pushing Samsung hard over other Android phones because they are more locked down with corporate policies mandating encryption and forbidding rooting/jailbreaking coming soon to my employer, I can see how a locked down phone is more attractive to them and could lead to more sales, not yet.
We're not their only market, and in the grand scheme of things, there may be more money for them going this path.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What they should be doing is making business/gov contracted phone deals locked down, and leaving the consumer phones as is, that's what they should be doing. Honestly TW is pretty good now and wouldn't bother me if I couldn't flash a rom (obviously I want to), however not having root and not being able to actually delete (not just disable) bloatware is f'n annoying lol.
TOA Duck said:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2721505
I know the qualcomm guys look. Lol
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh thats interesting. I had argued it was worthless since QC hadn't sent a takedown. May have to take another look.
There is an ota update of 142.00mb, Im trying to download it and I keep getting error. it reboots into recovery and says 25% then it boots into main phone, then it says install update was unsuccessful. Any ideas? I did have my phone rooted it before, the method I used was threw the app store.
the_professor. said:
There is an ota update of 142.00mb, Im trying to download it and I keep getting error. it reboots into recovery and says 25% then it boots into main phone, then it says install update was unsuccessful. Any ideas? I did have my phone rooted it before, the method I used was threw the app store.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Go here...http://forum.xda-developers.com/att-galaxy-s5/general/g900and3tong3keeprootota-zip-t2862299
Read trouble shooting
I dont want to root it again, i wanted to unroot it, i seem to be having alot of problems since I rooted .
the_professor. said:
I dont want to root it again, i wanted to unroot it, i seem to be having alot of problems since I rooted .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't have to root, that's why I said read the trouble shooting in the op.
what is op? sorry
the_professor. said:
what is op? sorry
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Opening post or sometimes Original poster.
I've been getting a notification about an update that I repeatedly decline. About 15 min ago it was forced to my phone but failed. What I mean by forced is I had no option to decline/remind me later. Now my biggest issue with that is how do they know or why do they think I'm not using my phone to handle important business? That is what aggravated me the most. Assuming I want the update, and attempting to force it on my phone. I'm pissed for real for the first time with AT&T.
Assassyn said:
I've been getting a notification about an update that I repeatedly decline. About 15 min ago it was forced to my phone but failed. What I mean by forced is I had no option to decline/remind me later. Now my biggest issue with that is how do they know or why do they think I'm not using my phone to handle important business? That is what aggravated me the most. Assuming I want the update, and attempting to force it on my phone. I'm pissed for real for the first time with AT&T.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Short answer - they don't care. Their interest in maintaining residual control over your property is more important to them than whatever you want to do with your property.
Assassyn said:
I've been getting a notification about an update that I repeatedly decline. About 15 min ago it was forced to my phone but failed. What I mean by forced is I had no option to decline/remind me later. Now my biggest issue with that is how do they know or why do they think I'm not using my phone to handle important business? That is what aggravated me the most. Assuming I want the update, and attempting to force it on my phone. I'm pissed for real for the first time with AT&T.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not to defend any carrier but my guess is they felt it was an important enough update and had to be pushed to the phone after the repeated attempts were declined. I agree that this is not a proper practice and perhaps a call to executive services filing a complaint might help in the long run. But as the other 99% of owners that are not rooted or modified will probably just accept the update, they have little concern for the rooted community. One would hope that it was detecting a period of low activity?
Kamchak said:
Short answer - they don't care. Their interest in maintaining residual control over your property is more important to them than whatever you want to do with your property.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah..the old "my property" argument....well what rights you have to things you purchase are subjective. In most communities a homeowner cannot park a vehicle on his own grass, nor keep unregistered vehicles in his driveway unless covered, has to maintain the property...and thousands of other laws and ordinances telling them exactly what they can and cannot do to their owned "property." Cell phones are a communication device thus governed by communication laws allowing the carriers to tell you what you can and cannot do to your "property" for security and communication regulated reasons. The only way around those regulations forcing updates to you (to a certain degree) is to buy an unlocked device from independent sales outlets. Using a certain carrier will then add their restrictions to you in the TOS that you sign.
KennyG123 said:
Ah..the old "my property" argument....well what rights you have to things you purchase are subjective. In most communities a homeowner cannot park a vehicle on his own grass, nor keep unregistered vehicles in his driveway unless covered, has to maintain the property...and thousands of other laws and ordinances telling them exactly what they can and cannot do to their owned "property." Cell phones are a communication device thus governed by communication laws allowing the carriers to tell you what you can and cannot do to your "property" for security and communication regulated reasons. The only way around those regulations forcing updates to you (to a certain degree) is to buy an unlocked device from independent sales outlets. Using a certain carrier will then add their restrictions to you in the TOS that you sign.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Although I understand what you are saying, and (being a homeowner) understand the realities of your post, I am uncertain as to the purpose in making the answer. Although my answer may be an old argument, that doesn't make it an erroneous argument. Their consideration for our interests begins and ends with our wallets. They couldn't care less about what we want to do with our communication equipment, whether bought from a certain carrier or an independent sales outlet. I'd venture to guess that their TOS isn't any different, regardless from where you obtain the property.
As far as there not being a way around their control, isn't that why this site exists? I thought what xda-developers was here for was to help people get the most out of their devices by providing a collaborative environment where people could share their experiences of creative use and exploration of said property without restriction by other entities?
Kamchak said:
Although I understand what you are saying, and (being a homeowner) understand the realities of your post, I am uncertain as to the purpose in making the answer. Although my answer may be an old argument, that doesn't make it an erroneous argument. Their consideration for our interests begins and ends with our wallets. They couldn't care less about what we want to do with our communication equipment, whether bought from a certain carrier or an independent sales outlet. I'd venture to guess that their TOS isn't any different, regardless from where you obtain the property.
As far as there not being a way around their control, isn't that why this site exists? I thought what xda-developers was here for was to help people get the most out of their devices by providing a collaborative environment where people could share their experiences of creative use and exploration of said property without restriction by other entities?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What you say is true...I was just trying to clarify the entitlement I see way too often regarding what people feel are their rights to do what they want with their "property." As a communication device it is not fully anyone's property until deactivated.
This site does exist to help members do more with their devices than intended by the carrier..however that comes with ramifications like voiding the warranty or violating TOS. There are many posts made by people thrown off of their carrier for tethering huge amounts of data. As for a way around their control...there are many methods available on this site to avoid updates. At the first sign of an unwanted updated the OP should have sought those methods out. I know...it was a surprise that it got forced on the device (though failing) without consent. I am sure there is some clause in the TOS allowing that. So I apologize if it seemed my post was directed at you..it was just to clarify this "property" idea that I see spouted way too often around this site. :good:
KennyG123 said:
Not to defend any carrier but my guess is they felt it was an important enough update and had to be pushed to the phone after the repeated attempts were declined. I agree that this is not a proper practice and perhaps a call to executive services filing a complaint might help in the long run. But as the other 99% of owners that are not rooted or modified will probably just accept the update, they have little concern for the rooted community. One would hope that it was detecting a period of low activity?
Ah..the old "my property" argument....well what rights you have to things you purchase are subjective. In most communities a homeowner cannot park a vehicle on his own grass, nor keep unregistered vehicles in his driveway unless covered, has to maintain the property...and thousands of other laws and ordinances telling them exactly what they can and cannot do to their owned "property." Cell phones are a communication device thus governed by communication laws allowing the carriers to tell you what you can and cannot do to your "property" for security and communication regulated reasons. The only way around those regulations forcing updates to you (to a certain degree) is to buy an unlocked device from independent sales outlets. Using a certain carrier will then add their restrictions to you in the TOS that you sign.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was able to get them to go away after freezing the updater apk file with Titanium BackUp. Haven't been bothered since. I think if it's that serious to where they need to force an update, they should at least tell us what the major concern is. Very likely that they won't but it's ok, I "fixed" it enough for my liking.
Assassyn said:
I was able to get them to go away after freezing the updater apk file with Titanium BackUp. Haven't been bothered since. I think if it's that serious to where they need to force an update, they should at least tell us what the major concern is. Very likely that they won't but it's ok, I "fixed" it enough for my liking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes! Thankfully there is no shortage of information on this site on how to prevent OTA's and the annoying nags.
KennyG123 said:
Yes! Thankfully there is no shortage of information on this site on how to prevent OTA's and the annoying nags.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I take my annoying nag out to dinner a couple times a month. Oops don't tell her I said that or I'll be building another doghouse. ????
"You stay classy San Diego"
Sent from my G900A powered by XKRom GoldLimiTed.
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.