On 2024-03-25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <utrubi$1426l$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:31:21,
> Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>>"Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote
>>
>>| > It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
>>| > phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have
>>| > unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.
>>|
>>| There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:
>>|
>>| 1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
>>| from any number of retailers.
>>| 2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24
>>| installments as part of the phone bill.
>
> Presumably you _could_ do route #1 and get credit from someone other
> than the carrier or OS provider (bank loan, credit card, ...).

Quite so -- but the issue is "the sticker says it's $500" vs "it's free*"

[*] right now; but we add $20 / month to your bill </fine-print>

>>|
>>| If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that
>>| carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon
>>| request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o
>>| the phone).
>>|
> So it isn't "free" really. I presume from your description that they
> conceal what part of the monthly payment is paying off the 'phone, and
> what part is for the service provision. (I _think_ our [UK and EU]
> legislators clamped down on that.)

It's in the fine print, it's always been in the fine print (it's also
broken out on your bill); but people don't read all that closely.
Historically (pre-2012 or so) there were FAR more issues with the manner
in which carriers "locked" the phones to their network (and wouldn't let
you leave, even post-contract).

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

Newyana2 wrote on 26/3/24 5:13 am:

<Snip>

> That's a good question. The technology and politics are
> moving fast. In the US people are outraged that insurance
> companies are jacking up rates based on spying. So where
> will that go? Historically it's mostly a case of exploitation through
> obscurity. If people have to be experts to avoid spying then the
> rare outliers don't matter. Most people will be exploitable. I have
> seen details about some cars online, but so far it's hard to find
> clear facts. So how many people will tear apart their dhasboard
> or back seat to remove a transmitter? And what if that makes the
> lights stop working?

And how long before 'removing the transmitter' VOIDS your Vehicle's
Warranty??
--
Daniel

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote

|
| I do think these should all be "opt out" as the default, not having to
| go turn everything off.

I think you mean opt-in by default. I read the other day that Vermont
has passed an extensive privacy law, following similar efforts by
California, Connecticut and others. If we get enough progress on
that front then it should be like right-to-repair -- companies will
just have to deal with it.

As I understand it, we're the only developed country without
health care for all. And now we're also the only developed country
without notable privacy regulation. We're so proud of founding a
new country based on personal freedom, rejecting monarchy. But in
many ways we just traded the king for the rich man. I suppose that's
sort of American karma. We were founded by ruling class idealists,
not laborers.

"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

|
| And how long before 'removing the transmitter' VOIDS your Vehicle's
| Warranty??

Indeed. That's one of the issues that needs to be
clarified. Are there such warranty issues with cars? A lot
of electrical appliances say the warranty is void if
you open the case. Cars are different. Removing a
camera to spy on car occupants has nothing to do
with a transmission failing early. I've done the brakes
and oil changes on my current car. I'm sure I wouldn't
be refused warranty service on that score. But it's
possible that companies will try to use such tricks.

In the past it's usually been passive control. Companies
don't want court cases. I remember reading a great
example of the premise some years ago: Companies
could put special sensors in wheel rims that check something
like an RFID tag in tires. If Toyota, say, can't confirm that
you have their special overpriced tires then they could
disable some functionality, claiming it's not safe without the
official tires. They wouldn't even have to claim DMCA infringement.
They could just give technical reasons why they can't be
sure of safety issues without confirming tire specs. Printer
companies are already doing just that and so far they haven't
been stopped.

Newyana2 wrote on 26/03/2024 11:41 pm:
> "Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>
> | | And how long before 'removing the transmitter' VOIDS your
> Vehicle's | Warranty??
>
> Indeed. That's one of the issues that needs to be clarified. Are
> there such warranty issues with cars? A lot of electrical appliances
> say the warranty is void if you open the case. Cars are different.
> Removing a camera to spy on car occupants has nothing to do with a
> transmission failing early. I've done the brakes and oil changes on
> my current car. I'm sure I wouldn't be refused warranty service on
> that score. But it's possible that companies will try to use such
> tricks.
>
> In the past it's usually been passive control. Companies don't want
> court cases. I remember reading a great example of the premise some
> years ago: Companies could put special sensors in wheel rims that
> check something like an RFID tag in tires. If Toyota, say, can't
> confirm that you have their special overpriced tires then they could
> disable some functionality, claiming it's not safe without the
> official tires. They wouldn't even have to claim DMCA infringement.
> They could just give technical reasons why they can't be sure of
> safety issues without confirming tire specs.

Maybe after 750,000 revolutions, the tyre KNOWS it's due for a
'Rotation' (Front to Back, Left to Right) so the car lets you know ....
and lets you know ..... and lets you ................!!

> Printer companies are already doing just that and so far they
> haven't been stopped.
> --
Daniel