Legal action -Samsung Knox- need 400 users lawyers will take case

Search This thread

CSmith4000

New member
Oct 1, 2015
2
0
Count Me In

I have a S5 not a Note. I understand that Knox can be uninstalled from the Notes but not the S5. It runs constantly in the background. Ever since installing the update which included this program, my phone has been overheating jumping to 125 degrees from little use, to 110 from a phone call. I have had to run U Power Saving to keep it from overheating. I did not have this problem before the update. I now have it in a far less protective case. I dread the damage that's been done by all the overheating and can be done without a protective case. It also gobbles up memory. To make matters worse, the update automatically downloaded to my Tab 4 even though I've set it to not do so. It can't install this update because it's too large. It keeps interrupting what I'm doing to demand it be installed and can't be removed from my notification window without causing other problems. For both devices the size has caused many apps to stop working to make room for itself. Thought I own both devices. The warranty is up on my Tab and almost up on my phone. What business is it for Samsung whether or not I root my privately owned devices after the warranty is up. I loved my S5 and Tab 4 before the problems created by this malware program called Knox and have lost precious time and sleep trying to fix these problems. I am beyond angry over Samsung burning me as a customer and don't ever plan on purchasing another Samsung item again. They obviously can not be trusted. This is coming from someone whose household has other devices made by them. Whoever claims Knox can be removed or doesn't affect the way devices are used clearly doesn't know what they're talking about and may never have made full use of their devices. So, PLEASE COUNT ME IN.

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------
 
Last edited:

KennyG123

Senior Moderator / Mod Committee / Spider-Mod
Staff member
Nov 1, 2010
39,951
54,754
Right behind you!
Samsung could care less if you root or not. These security updates are to protect the general populace who don't even know what "rooting" is or does from these hackers trying every minute to access people's phones and financial information. Sprint and T-Mobile Samsung devices have no problem rooting. As mentioned several times in this thread, blame your carrier for fully enforcing the security options, locking bootloaders and the carrier detection spyware in the bloat. Also feel free to blame the hackers forcing companies like Samsung to make their phones more secure which boosts sales and reputation.
But also mentioned in this thread, the guy whose 2 year old performed an update his phone (get that kid an XDA account :p ), the OP, has not logged on for 2 years. So I seriously doubt anyone is taking this "case".
 

pmdawn

New member
Jul 12, 2007
1
0
Count me in. The carriers and the government are using this app to spy on you. The app constantly scans your phone when you think it's idle. That's why I root! I change my OS just to keep my phone from using memory, overheating, and sucking the life out of my battery when my phone should be asleep. I own my phone and they have no right to know what I'm doing with it. I don't have anything to hide but my privacy is important to me. I hate people reading over my shoulder!
 

jolopicus

Member
Nov 30, 2006
5
0
me too. if the firm has an online petition/thing send us the link, sometimes that works well to put the personal deets to the lawfirm directly instead of in the forums.
 

Ascii3

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2015
229
66
Spoke with my lawyer. Says I have a case against samsung.
...
I don't have the money to fork over legal expenses.
How much money are we talking about?

If you wish to join reply to post. Once we reach 400 will contact you all with an for proper information.
I probably would wish to join.

2.) The knox feature was not advertised when selling the note 2 and other phones sold prior to introducing knox to our phones.
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:
(1) The Knox technology is designed to damage to users equipment (e-Fuse technology).
(a) This may result in the lowering of the value of the devices for which Knox is applied.
(2) The Knox technology does not seem to have been advertised to come with a firmware update. Particularly with devices that that had pre-Knox firmware, no choice or disclose is given with regards the the implementation of a defect or DRM; disclose is required under the laws of United States of America (a lawsuit wherefore may be brought there).

There is also a paper by the United States government Federal Trade Commission that informs about some of the consumer rights for those that may be interested:
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/f...-drm/rosch-berkeley-drm20speech-mar9-2007.pdf

It may also be wise to report Knox to the United States government Federal Trade Commission. It further might help the lawsuit and possibly reduce the Knox problem for the future.
 

Ascii3

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2015
229
66
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.
 
Last edited:

KennyG123

Senior Moderator / Mod Committee / Spider-Mod
Staff member
Nov 1, 2010
39,951
54,754
Right behind you!
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.

Ummm... Did you read the OP at all? He was mad and suing because his 2 year old accepted an update. We need to get that kid an account here because a few others had trouble just updating :p. That resulted in him losing root and inability to downgrade. This is not a path promised or warranted by Samsung. Incidentally, I have Sprint and Knox on my Note 4 with root. So it is not Samsung you need to go after.
As far as denying root, of course they will try to prevent root... It's their job to make the devices most secure. It's hackers ' jobs to try to find ways around it. Root allows hackers into your phone to steal all your banking information and ID. Why wouldn't 99.9% of the consumers want to prevent that?
I am not advocating what Knox does from a developer stand point but can certainly see it from a regular consumer and sales volume stand point.
Not sure why you are reviving this long dead thread.
 
Last edited:

Ascii3

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2015
229
66
Ummm... Did you read the OP at all?
I did indeed.
Not sure why you are reviving this long dead thread.
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.
 
Last edited:

KennyG123

Senior Moderator / Mod Committee / Spider-Mod
Staff member
Nov 1, 2010
39,951
54,754
Right behind you!
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.

So, you are saying that your issue is that Samsung does not warn you tampering with your phone may cause damage to it? :eek:

Yet this is exclusive to AT&T, not say Sprint or T-Mobile?

Good luck with the lawsuit and finding another lawyer to take it.
 

Top Liked Posts

  • There are no posts matching your filters.
  • 4
    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.

    This post convinced me to join the lawsuit. That's you opinion and it'a fair,
    However I like having choice, freedom, and ownership as a consumer. I don't like having updates remove and change features that I orginally paid for
    4
    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? Got a little bit of news for you, you better start looking for some old phones on swappa and ebay because there are talks that Google is incorporating some of Knox into L OS version. Also Sprint and T-mobile have no issues rooting with the same version of Knox...so maybe you should be looking at what your carrier is doing.
    And as for a 2 year old accepting the update, you had options to lock your phone with many different methods. This 2 year old accepted the option to first download it, wait while the file downloaded, then also accepted the option to install now? I do not think this lawyer has all the information. Especially when Google and Samsung on the devil's advocate side would face a much larger lawsuit if doing nothing to try and prevent the millions of non-XDA users from getting their phone hacked. Knox and locked bootloaders have nothing to do with trying to prevent the 100,000 XDA AT&T or Verizon Samsung users from rooting. It is to make the phones as secure as possible for military and business applications.

    Here is sammobile's report on "L" and Knox: http://www.sammobile.com/2014/06/25...egrate-knox-into-androids-next-major-release/
    3
    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.

    At no point did Samsung or AT&T guarantee the rootability of a device. And remember, the other millions of owners don't know about these "ramifications" as I am sure they are happy to know that their phone is more secure. Windows updates your system constantly for security updates. If that suddenly stops a Pr0n site from showing up on your PC because it is now considered malicious should they have notified you? The updates do nothing to prevent the out of the box use intended by the device. I am merely stating that this suit has no legal grounds. If you know about rooting and know about hacking, you know not to accept updates until you find out what they are. You should know ways of preventing those updates, and you should know how to secure your phone from anyone using it to accept those updates without your permission. The other millions of users out there can keep moving along blissfully happy that their phone is constantly being updated and not left in the dust.

    Why should the carriers disclose that your device be more difficult to root? Rooting is not an authorized procedure supported by the carriers at all! I missed the disclosure by Sony on my PS3 that accepting the update which will allow me to access the Playstation Network is also to prevent jailbreaking it on the current revision. Add to that, read the OP...it states nothing about the carrier. It is a suit directed at Samsung. Knox does not prevent any use of the device which is authorized and supported by the carrier. Also Knox does not prevent rooting as seen on T-Mobile and Sprint forums as well as the international forums.

    But I wish you guys luck with the suit and hope the lawyer is accepting this Pro Bono and no one has to dish out any non-refundable legal fees. I just wanted you all to be better informed of what you are asking.
    2
    Throw me in the mix, can I go in twice? I have 2 notes dueces.
    2
    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.