Bricking someone's hardware, that they've paid for, is a crime already. It should be treated like a crime even if the person doing the bricking is the phone manufacturer. It's not their phone once they've sold it
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
87 points (95.8% liked)
Privacy
29871 readers
1219 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Ownership no longer has the same definition in the eyes of corporations and governments!
As concerning as that is, more so is the fact that the same infrastructure could be used for malicious intentions. That is ransomware level of control they reserve simply because they manufacture these devices.
If we wanted to own the devices we bought, we would have needed to start 20 years ago.
Now it's too late, the only reasonable thing you can do is clawing back control over your device by installing a custom ROM.
Agreed. But it's good for authorities, and as the mexicanist authorities demonstrated, to treat this as a crime. To prevent companies from doing this.
So people illegally imported cell phones. Illegal in the eyes of the Mexican government? If so, it’s interesting that they care about protecting the consumers of illegal devices.
Its not illegal.
This is about manufacturers not wanting to loose their control on distribution and price setting.
I presumed exess media attention to the matter pushed them towards this response.
That they would even build such a remote lock into "not their phone" is Orwellian technofacism.
Where did you get that the phones were illegally imported?
I'm confused about that too. Apparently it is in the contract that you aren't allowed to take your device you legally purchased with you where you want, or to sell it after buying it? Or are they only allowed to sell their phone to people in the same country as themselves? Or something?