Comment by tsimionescu

Comment by tsimionescu 2 days ago

Phones, just like cars, are only allowed to be manufactured and sold to the extent that the manufacturer takes reasonable efforts to prevent end-user misuse of the devices they are selling. This is because phones, just like cars, use and can greatly affect shared public infrastructure - the radio spectrum for phones, public roads for cars. As such, it is natural that there are manufacturer enforced restrictions on end user's use of these devices. Whether this particular case is an overreach of this, or whether there is a real risk to the network from allowing this, I'm not sure.

like_any_other 2 days ago

I wouldn't mind your servile attitude so much if it wasn't dragging the rest of us down with you. A key part of "may your chains set lightly upon you" was "go home from us".

Reply View 9 replies

raw_anon_1111 2 days ago

Because the airwaves are a shared service license to the carriers. Like someone posted about Australia, there were laws made that if a phone couldn’t make emergency calls. It can’t be used.
There is no monetary reason for Google to forbid a service that could increase its addressable market

Reply View | 5 replies
- like_any_other 2 days ago
  
  Stop pretending Google was legally compelled to do this. So far not a single law against VoLTE has been cited.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  tsimionescu a day ago
  
  Google did this because otherwise carriers would refuse access to Google Pixel phones entirely on their networks. Carriers are legally allowed to refuse access to devices they deem faulty on their networks.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  raw_anon_1111 2 days ago
  
  No one said it was the “law” the carriers have certification requirements
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
tsimionescu a day ago

Please avoid this type of maximalist rhetoric. There is clearly a public good to be served by making sure it's not easy to disrupt radio communications, especially by accident. Since any antenna, if not carefully controlled, can cause significant disruption in radio communication around it, it follows that it's a good thing, in principle, that users can't easily misuse their radio emitters to cause disruptions for others. I would say that this is all fairly uncontroversial, outside some extreme libertarian "my property woo!" positions.
Now, while in this particular case, the "vulnerability" that Google patched wasn't affecting the actual radio components, it may have still caused disruptions to the 4G/5G software - it's not very clear to me. It's also very possible that it didn't, and it was just allowing users to circumvent some market segmentation BS that some carrier marketing invented. In that case, I'm all for using our political power to prevent such BS.
But this is still a completely different argument than claiming that you should be allowed to do anything with your phone because you bought it (at least allowed by the design, even if it would be illegal). This is simply not a real right that anyone recognizes, or even desires - again, beyond some extremist libertarians.

Reply View | 2 replies
- like_any_other a day ago
  
  I am not objecting to it not being allowed to jam radio/disrupt communications. I am objecting to corporations one-sidedly policing us, using said disruption as a mere excuse (or not even an excuse in this case - Google secretly patched this, without disclosing it in the patch notes).
  Is it really an "extremist libertarian" position that corporations shouldn't abuse their backdoor access to our devices to enforce their whims? Or even that our property shouldn't enforce laws against us? Like mandating all cars come with a remote shutoff that police can use. It sounds like a totalitarian dystopia to me.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  tsimionescu 18 hours ago
  
  The point is that, according to the law a sit stands, a device manufacturer that knowingly ships a device that can be used to accidentally jam communications is breaking the law. Not only is the device manufacturer allowed to modify the device to prevent this, they are compelled by the law to take reasonable steps to do so. Automatic updates are such a reasonable step (and note, you can refuse to install updates on your Android phone - of course, you'll miss out on security updates as well, and may not be able to run certain apps if you're too far out of date). The exact same thing is true of cars.
  If a car manufacturer realized that they accidentally left a button in your car that allows you to leak oil, they would have to issue a recall, and any service shop that worked on your car would be obligated to remove said button to make your car work - at the auto maker's expense, of course. The service checkup is the equivalent of the online update on your phone: you're not forced to do it, but many things will stop working if you do, and illegal features will be removed from your car at the checkup.
  Of course, I agree that the patch here is not at the same level as an easy way to accidentally jam nearby radios. However, the general legal principle is the same: the argument "Google can't legally modify my property in ways I don't want when I install an update" isn't true, because they can and should have this power in certain cases. That the particular case of enabling VoLTE despite the carrier settings disallowing it doesn't warrant this power simply means that this case should be fought by different arguments, not by a general principle that simply doesn't exist in law.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies