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.:
That's my argument here. Driving with a GN7 poses as much public risk as flying with one does.
So do guns and beer. So those should be taken by force from people? Because under the wrong conditions they can be used improperly?
But this isn't a case of just misuse.
These phones have been charging in "good conditions" and they've still caught on fire, and exploded.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
And has made a severe push to collect these phones. So move your data off of the phone, and trade it in.
You're putting others at risk, not just your self by continuing to keep and use these damn phones.
That's your opinion and it just doesn't work this way. If this is how things worked, guns, beer, cars themselves... would all be illegal. Someone thinks all of those things are risks to the public, along with computers, microwaves, phones, etc.
-
- 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.
- This OTA update is an unprecedented (to my knowledge) step. It could easily go to litigation and stay there for years if someone wanted to set precedent.
- Debate the ethical nature of it all you want, but STFU up on legality.
- The recall is not mandatory. A mandatory recall is mandated by a government agency. This is a voluntary recall by Samsung. They were not forced to do so.
- No recall is mandatory to the consumer, ever.
-
@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.
-
@dafyre 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.:
Because of some reason 7% of these are still out there, Samsung has repeatedly said to turn these in, they can and likely will blow up in your face. Don't take the risk.
What people don't realize is that they are playing Russian Roulette... Or playing with fire (literally).
The smart ones have already made the swap... The other 7% well...
It's not really that risky, what's the worst that anyone has seen yet? All phones risk blowing up, these are just higher. But if you know the risks and treat them properly, it's not our place to say if it is dangerous. Eating hot dogs carries a high risk of choking, but we don't act like it's crazy to keep eating them.
-
@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.
