Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.
-
@JaredBusch said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
- Scott, and the rest of you, just STFU about the legality. None of you are a sitting judge with a court case in front of you regarding this and you cannot tell us if the OTA is legal or not.
Even a sitting judge just offers opinion. But bricking any device intentionally has gone to court before and qualifies as vandalism. And that's from a sitting judge at some point.
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
I can own a gun in NY but I can't drive with it (except under certain conditions.) Your are stating the car thing as if, like the plane, it's okay to steal anything from people that isn't advisably to keep in a moving car... like guns or beer.
Theren't no wrong conditions here. The phone owner can't decide.. oh the phone won't blow up today.. it either just does or doesn't.. the owner has no knowledge or control. That's the difference.
Guns can go off too, and do. It's not the difference. Carrying a gun dangerous on a plane, that's a wrong condition. Just like taking this phone on a plane. But keeping a gun in your house or this phone someplace safe - that's the owner's accepted risk and decision.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@JaredBusch said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
- Scott, and the rest of you, just STFU about the legality. None of you are a sitting judge with a court case in front of you regarding this and you cannot tell us if the OTA is legal or not.
Even a sitting judge just offers opinion. But bricking any device intentionally has gone to court before and qualifies as vandalism. And that's from a sitting judge at some point.
That would be a related issue, but still is not precedent for this.
-
According to Scott, those owners of the Google Pixel's that Google bricked a few weeks ago because the tax fraud thing, that would be illegal too.
I wonder if anyone will take them to court over it, even though Google backed off, the end user, according to Scott, was wronged.
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
According to Scott, those owners of the Google Pixel's that Google bricked a few weeks ago because the tax fraud thing, that would be illegal too.
I don't know the details, I'd not heard about that. Did they legitimately own the phones and a private company destroyed their devices for their own reasons?
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
According to Scott, those owners of the Google Pixel's that Google bricked a few weeks ago because the tax fraud thing, that would be illegal too.
I wonder if anyone will take them to court over it, even though Google backed off, the end user, according to Scott, was wronged.
Googled this, find nothing. What is this event that you are speaking of?
-
The reason that these phones were gov't mandate recalled is because Samsung voluntarily recalled the phones.
Which means that anyone stupid enough to keep a phone like this should have the phone bricked on them to protect the rest of the world that has turned the phones in.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
According to Scott, those owners of the Google Pixel's that Google bricked a few weeks ago because the tax fraud thing, that would be illegal too.
I wonder if anyone will take them to court over it, even though Google backed off, the end user, according to Scott, was wronged.
Googled this, find nothing. What is this event that you are speaking of?
Google disabled Google Pixels (and disabled user accounts tied to these phones) which were purchased via third party resellers.
Which is strictly against the ToS of your google account to purchase via 3rd parties.
So google was just flexing their rights under the ToS.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
The reason that these phones were gov't mandate recalled is because Samsung voluntarily recalled the phones.
That's not how that works.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
According to Scott, those owners of the Google Pixel's that Google bricked a few weeks ago because the tax fraud thing, that would be illegal too.
I wonder if anyone will take them to court over it, even though Google backed off, the end user, according to Scott, was wronged.
Googled this, find nothing. What is this event that you are speaking of?
https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/239728-google-suspends-accounts-used-resell-pixel-phones-profit
they might not have turned off the phones, they might have only disabled their Google accounts.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
Which means that anyone stupid enough to keep a phone like this should have the phone bricked on them to protect the rest of the world that has turned the phones in.
Wrong logic even if the original info was right, which it was not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
The reason that these phones were gov't mandate recalled is because Samsung voluntarily recalled the phones.
That's not how that works.
You're right its not, because if the Gov't mandates that Samsung recall the phones then Samsung would have to go to court to have the ruling.
In this case, Samsung said "well F, these things are killing people, we better recall all of them"
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
According to Scott, those owners of the Google Pixel's that Google bricked a few weeks ago because the tax fraud thing, that would be illegal too.
I wonder if anyone will take them to court over it, even though Google backed off, the end user, according to Scott, was wronged.
Googled this, find nothing. What is this event that you are speaking of?
Google disabled Google Pixels (and disabled user accounts tied to these phones) which were purchased via third party resellers.
Which is strictly against the ToS of your google account to purchase via 3rd parties.
So google was just flexing their rights under the ToS.
- One, this means that the users agreed so there is zero relationship to the existing Samsung situation.
- I've heard zero of them bricking anything, only disabling additional accounts. That's totally different as well.
- I've heard that they reversed this, which is impossible with bricking.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
In this case, Samsung said "well F, these things are killing people, we better recall all of them"
Purely your speculation. If there was serious concern about that, we would know it from the government making a mandatory recall. They did not, so we know that the US does not agree with your opinion.
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
According to Scott, those owners of the Google Pixel's that Google bricked a few weeks ago because the tax fraud thing, that would be illegal too.
I wonder if anyone will take them to court over it, even though Google backed off, the end user, according to Scott, was wronged.
Googled this, find nothing. What is this event that you are speaking of?
https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/239728-google-suspends-accounts-used-resell-pixel-phones-profit
they might not have turned off the phones, they might have only disabled their Google accounts.
Right, so many levels of "not similar to this situation." I knew that they suspended service for people who didn't purchase that service. That's like taking back a phone that someone stole from you. THe situation is reversed, Google was the one being stolen from, not the person who had the service disabled.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
In this case, Samsung said "well F, these things are killing people, we better recall all of them"
Purely your speculation. If there was serious concern about that, we would know it from the government making a mandatory recall. They did not, so we know that the US does not agree with your opinion.
My speculation, how is this my speculation on what happened?
Read the news about this recall, and the incidents of harm that these phones caused. I'm certain the government hasn't seen a reason to force a government recall because the voluntary recall has pulled in 93% of all of these phones.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
In this case, Samsung said "well F, these things are killing people, we better recall all of them"
Purely your speculation. If there was serious concern about that, we would know it from the government making a mandatory recall. They did not, so we know that the US does not agree with your opinion.
My speculation, how is this my speculation on what happened?
You are...
- Making up that the government not recalling is because Samsung did, that's not even kind of how that works.
- Determining the risk on your own, clearly no one agrees with that risk level.
- Deciding WHY Samsung did something that they were not required to do as if you know their business concerns, costs, marketing, etc.
Every part of it is speculation, and not likely nor logical speculation. Samsung's long term behaviour doesn't support this, nor does the US government's behaviour. You are taking some inflated media headlines and making crazy, disconnected business determinations from them that just don't add up.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
Read the news about this recall, and the incidents of harm that these phones caused. I'm certain the government hasn't seen a reason to force a government recall because the voluntary recall has pulled in 93% of all of these phones.
That's not how government recall determinations work. BUt you can be certain all you want, it's not logical, reasonable and the result is that Samsung and Verizon have no right (unless a judge steps in to say otherwise as the closest precedence and standing laws say otherwise) to make these kinds of judgment calls outside of a federal mandatory recall, period.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
In this case, Samsung said "well F, these things are killing people, we better recall all of them"
Purely your speculation. If there was serious concern about that, we would know it from the government making a mandatory recall. They did not, so we know that the US does not agree with your opinion.
My speculation, how is this my speculation on what happened?
You are...
- Making up that the government not recalling is because Samsung did, that's not even kind of how that works.
- Determining the risk on your own, clearly no one agrees with that risk level.
- Deciding WHY Samsung did something that they were not required to do as if you know their business concerns, costs, marketing, etc.
Every part of it is speculation, and not likely nor logical speculation. Samsung's long term behaviour doesn't support this, nor does the US government's behaviour. You are taking some inflated media headlines and making crazy, disconnected business determinations from them that just don't add up.
Show me proof otherwise.
It is in Samsungs interest to take the phones back (media coverage and good faith).
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
In this case, Samsung said "well F, these things are killing people, we better recall all of them"
Purely your speculation. If there was serious concern about that, we would know it from the government making a mandatory recall. They did not, so we know that the US does not agree with your opinion.
My speculation, how is this my speculation on what happened?
You are...
- Making up that the government not recalling is because Samsung did, that's not even kind of how that works.
- Determining the risk on your own, clearly no one agrees with that risk level.
- Deciding WHY Samsung did something that they were not required to do as if you know their business concerns, costs, marketing, etc.
Every part of it is speculation, and not likely nor logical speculation. Samsung's long term behaviour doesn't support this, nor does the US government's behaviour. You are taking some inflated media headlines and making crazy, disconnected business determinations from them that just don't add up.
Show me proof otherwise.
It is in Samsungs interest to take the phones back (media coverage and good faith).
I don't need to, you have no grounds for your opinion. You are making up reasons based on nothing and then saying to prove that they didn't. Doesn't work that way. That it is in Samsung's interest to take them back is without question, or they would not do it. but that the reason is to protect people is totally made up by you and we have zero reason to believe that to be true or even likely, but we DO know that their delays and denials in doing so show that they did not have that interest initially, so having it now would be unlikely.
