You guys do realize the OP has not logged in since October 2014 right?
How much money are we talking about?Spoke with my lawyer. Says I have a case against samsung.
...
I don't have the money to fork over legal expenses.
I probably would wish to join.If you wish to join reply to post. Once we reach 400 will contact you all with an for proper information.
This is one of the issues. There are some other issues, particular relate with regard to the the Knox Warranty Bit and the e-Fuse technology:2.) The knox feature was not advertised when selling the note 2 and other phones sold prior to introducing knox to our phones.
At issue to many of us, as I perceive it, is not the increased security; rather, it is the intention introduction of a defect or DRM (Data Rights Management) without disclosing it. Further, there appears to be a malicious intent with said defect or DRM: a device may intentionally and automatically damage itself in hardware (using what is e-fuse technology). Further, the added security features by Knox are disallowed to those for which the device has been damaged by the Knox technology even when the device firmware is fully restored to stock (using a Samsung Kies or Samsung Smart Switch, for example).I am sorry but after reading this thread everyday I have to finally say something. You guys are trying to sue Samsung for adding security to your phone to prevent it from being easily hacked, your personal and banking information being stolen, unauthorized use, and not being able to root it and put unauthorized software on it?
At issue to many of us, as I perceive it, is not the increased security; rather, it is the intention introduction of a defect or DRM (Data Rights Management) without disclosing it. Further, there appears to be a malicious intent with said defect or DRM: a device may intentionally and automatically damage itself in hardware (using what is e-fuse technology). Further, the added security features by Knox are disallowed to those for which the device has been damaged by the Knox technology even when the device firmware is fully restored to stock (using a Samsung Kies or Samsung Smart Switch, for example).
You may be interested in reading what Samsung has added to a FAQ with regards to this:
https://www.samsungknox.com/en/faq/what-knox-warranty-bit-and-how-it-triggered
I have also attached a PDF 1.4 document to this post preserving the information.
The Samsung document also seems to relate the intent of the introduction of defect to guard against rooting. The intended logic appears to be: If you do not want the Samsung device to intentionally damage itself (and consequently lose value), do not root the device.
I did indeed.
I do believe the thread to still be valid. With regards to the thread revival, the age of the last post of this thread was not significant with regards to the decision to post content.
I did indeed.
I do believe the thread to still be valid. With regards to the thread revival, the age of the last post of this thread was not significant with regards to the decision to post content.
The legal issue is not whether or or Knox or other Samsung provided security is desirable or a valid implementation notwithstanding requirements of notice; it is regarding adequate notice by Samsung and damages that arise consequently due to that failure.
I like Knox... I don't see what the big deal is. Lose the ability to root like Apple so devs have to pull a jailbreak every new version that comes out by vulnerability hunting? I've come to the conclusion that there is no need for me to root anymore. I have become the normal smartphone user who doesn't need more than what comes stock after all these years rooting and bug hunting. It is now a waste of time for me.
And you know what else?
There are millions of people who are just like me who could give a rat's ass about how Knox stops me from rooting my phone.
Before you go flaming, understand that I am talking about myself and the other millions who have no clue that XDA even exists. You can do what you need to feel better about yourself by gathering a class action lawsuit against a multi-billion corporation. Good luck with that.
There's a gulf of difference between a device being advertised with a feature and shipping with it and a mandatory update installing said feature.
The carriers didn't even disclose the ramifications of installing OTAs containing Knox.
I don't have an issue with updates changing features over time but something that alters your relationship with your property in such a fashion should be opt-in and after disclosing the ramifications.