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.
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".
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
Stop pretending Google was legally compelled to do this. So far not a single law against VoLTE has been cited.
4 replies →
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.
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.
1 reply →