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

Search This thread

droideastcoast

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2012
93
15
Spoke with my lawyer. Says I have a case against samsung.

1.) Samsung faild to password protect update option
As my almost 2 year old managed to update me to 4.4 from JB 4.1.2. When I did not want 4.3 or 4.4 due to knox.

2.) The knox feature was not advertised when selling the note 2 and other phones sold prior to introducing knox to our phones.

I don't have the money to fork over legal expenses. So lawyer said if I can find more then 400 samsung users who are stuck with knox they would take the case.

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


Pls only use this to count yourself in. Add a comment if you wish when adding yourself but pls no chating. Will make it easy to count who's in this way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jhavron and 808cbt

droideastcoast

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2012
93
15
Kind of sad that ppl are complaining about knox secure boot and trip but no one is willing to step up and take samsung to court?
Come on guys.

This could also be the answer to removing the secure boot.
If noone steps up then samsung will continue to do this kind of crap.
 

R1K05@N

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2012
204
107
Honolulu
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.
 

Cryingmoose

Senior Member
Aug 30, 2011
342
170
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
 

KennyG123

Senior Moderator / Mod Committee / Spider-Mod
Staff member
Nov 1, 2010
39,954
54,766
Right behind you!
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/
 

TerryMathews

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2006
144
78
Enon, OH
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/
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lownox

KennyG123

Senior Moderator / Mod Committee / Spider-Mod
Staff member
Nov 1, 2010
39,954
54,766
Right behind you!
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.
 
Last edited:

slaydog

Senior Member
Dec 14, 2009
1,938
684
If I'm not mistaken, the Federal government (USA) guaranteed end users the right to root access of our phones, and recently upheld that law. But does Knox really stop you from rooting it? Luckily I have avoided it because I haven't had a stock ROM for more than a few minutes on my phone since I bought it
 

TerryMathews

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2006
144
78
Enon, OH
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.

There is a difference between guaranteeing a product's suitability for given task and actively working to reduce that capability.

For instance, let's look at car recalls. Some of them impact how your car behaves, its gas mileage, or its service schedule. Ever notice how the dealer needs your consent before modifying your vehicle?

Your example of Windows Update is equally flawed. Windows Update is an opt-in service which in fact reinforces my earlier point that Knox or system updates in general should be opt-in or at least have a provision for opt-out that doesn't involve rooting your device.

Court cases aren't decided on popularity. If they were, Roe v. Wade would have gone a very different direction (as an example).

I hope you're not a lawyer Kenny...
 

R1K05@N

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2012
204
107
Honolulu
Honestly... there's no point in arguing. Whomever goes and does this lawsuit, have fun, good luck, and I hope no money comes out of your own pocket. Your XDA soap box will get you nowhere so go out and do what you have to do to get your rocks off. Even if you even do succeed, enjoy the years of counter-suits and appeals.
 

KennyG123

Senior Moderator / Mod Committee / Spider-Mod
Staff member
Nov 1, 2010
39,954
54,766
Right behind you!
There is a difference between guaranteeing a product's suitability for given task and actively working to reduce that capability.

For instance, let's look at car recalls. Some of them impact how your car behaves, its gas mileage, or its service schedule. Ever notice how the dealer needs your consent before modifying your vehicle?

Your example of Windows Update is equally flawed. Windows Update is an opt-in service which in fact reinforces my earlier point that Knox or system updates in general should be opt-in or at least have a provision for opt-out that doesn't involve rooting your device.

Court cases aren't decided on popularity. If they were, Roe v. Wade would have gone a very different direction (as an example).

I hope you're not a lawyer Kenny...

There is no further point in arguing with you as clearly you are not a lawyer either. No one mentioned popularity. Your arguments are misconstrued and have nothing to do with the focus of the lawsuit. You should reread the "opening statement" a 2 year old "accepted" the update meaning optional, not mandatory, and there are ways for anyone who can search to not accept the OTA or update.

Have a nice day and good luck. As I stated earlier, Knox is now moving to Google and the next version of Android and it also does not prevent rooting if you would just check out the other carriers. This is the main flaw in this law suit. Lawyered :p :)
 
Last edited:

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.