Hacker News Reader

Comment by devney | Hacker News Reader

On the surface this seems blatantly illegal: after the sale is made the no-longer-owner removes functionality.

Can someone please explain how this is legally not some sort of theft, or bait-and-switch, or ... something?

I read comments about firmware licensing, or Japan's camera noise thing. Those sound like Samsung problems, while disabling a camera sounds like an actionable user problem.

View on HN

It's not really an after-sale thing. They sold a phone with a booby trap set already. If the customer springs the trap, that's a customer action, not a Samsung action.

Most laws tend to frown upon traps. And the blame goes to the one who sets the trap, not the one who trips it, even if the victim was engaging in otherwise illegal actions.

That depends on the trap and how you set it. If you dig a hole for a house and someone falls in you are not liable.

As always, intent is king. If you make a hole intended to be a trap for trespassers, you likely will be liable. If the hole has a different, legitimate purpose, then you're likely not liable if you've marked the hole properly.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/liabili...

Not really related to the discussion at hand but I often wonder if that's the right way to make laws? "Intent is king" is the watchword of modern American jurisprudence but I ask you: If you killed 3 people, are they less dead if it was an accident? If people knew they would be punished for consequences instead of intent, would people be more careful about considering the consequences of their actions? Would that make for, just in general, a more observant, more considerate, more intelligent populace, with less collateral damage? By extension, might that result in more just/fair laws just in general?

I'm fairly confident this "intent" thing is absolutely the wrong way to build a society. I would love if someone would engage with this idea and offer criticisms for/against but so far nobody has.

That sounds wrong and likely varies wildly across jurisdictions.

If you dig a hole on your property you better secure it, or else kids might fall in.

Yes, that’s actually why tort reform is such a big topic in American jurisprudence. Because property owners are liable if a bunch of kids suffer injuries on their property by falling into a hole, almost regardless of intent. Yes even if it’s properly secured with fencing, in many jurisdictions the trespassers sue for damages and succeed often.

Even failing to shovel the snow and having someone trip and injure themselves is enough grounds for some sort of tort liability.

To a lesser extent it’s true in Canada and the UK too I believe.

It's an "attractive nuisance." You'd better lock your hot tub and garage freezer too.

It's legal because 1) There's a binding arbitration clause 2) Samsung have more money for lawyers for you.

Is 1.) a EULA/click through?

If so I think it is void in Europe. You probably still have to fight but you should stand a chance if you have some resources and want to fight.

It seems that bootloader unlocking isn't listed as a feature and this restriction is implemented from day 1. So it shouldn't be illegal, I think. It's still better than phones that don't support unlocking.

It's probably somewhere deep in the EULA/ToS and furthermore it is shown, while unlocking the bootloader. Whether this is legal or not, is surely an open question.

That raises whole other legal questions....

One basic pillar of contract law basically everywhere is that one can not be bound by a contract that they didn't read, even if they signed it. Usually these cases involve coercion or not knowing the language. If nobody can read the EULA because it's 10 pages of densely written legalese, can they even be bound by it?

Since BigCo deliberately made their EULA harder to read than necessary, that probably counts as "acting in bad faith" which is an entirely different legal avenue for the EULA to be void.

> One basic pillar of contract law basically everywhere is that one can not be bound by a contract that they didn't read, even if they signed it.

Wait, there has to be more nuance to this, right? Like, I can't just sign a contract and say "I didn't read it" when a term I don't like comes into force. Is there a precedent for where that line is?

There is much more to it and I wouldn't trust any legal advice given to you by OP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_est_factum

For those who can't be bothered to read wikipedia, this only applies when the courts can find you read it to the best of your ability and misunderstood it. Mostly it applies to those who can't read (either at all or the language of the contract) and so trusted someone else to tell them what it meant and they were deceived.

If you could have read the document but didn't, that is your own fault and the contract stands. Only if you couldn't have read the contract, or you clearly could not understand it does the contract not apply.

"If you could have read the document but didn't, that is your own fault and the contract stands." That's the point, isn't it? Gideon v. Wainwright clearly established that no non-lawyer can be expected to win against a trained lawyer. Since BigCo has a team of trained lawyers making the EULA impossible to read, ... Well, Gideon didn't go this far, but if we extend the logic in that ruling, there's certainly a major precedent that nobody can be expected to understand the EULA, and thus it might be void.

I support this interpretation.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a native speaker but I have spent way too much time on EULAs and groklaw and stuff when I was younger and my honest conclusion is a competent lawyer can probably make a planet size hole in a contract without most of HN noticing: many because they don't read it (I'm here now), many because English is not their first language an even among those who know English well(I used to be in this camp), legalese is almost a separate language.

Of course there's more nuance to this. As I mentioned, these cases usually involve coercion (someone held a gun to your head and made you sign the contract) or not speaking the language (interpreter wasn't available/translated wrong/deceived).

This question then rests on: Can the user reasonably be expected to read 10 pages of dense legalese?

I think the real-life answer is an obvious NO. Current law generally assumes YES, except in cases where it doesn't. You see how there's some conflict here which I expect to be clarified by some court soon.

I can't help thinking that the correct "malicious compliance" strategy for legislators to tackle this is to pass a law that says any time a user is required to agree to an EULA on a device which is capable of playing audio files, the device should have to play an unskippable audio recording of the EULA being spoken out loud by a voice actor, at a normal talking speed.

Adding a 30 minute wait before someone can use your product or your website would ruin the customer experience, and would encourage at least some companies to question which clauses are actually needed.

It's printed quite clearly in the quick start guide that it'll break your phone if you do it. Maybe people should read the little booklet, but as you can see it's not hidden under a pile of text.

> Approved firmware versions

> This device will only operate with

> firmware versions that have been

> approved for use by your wireless

> carrier and the device manufacturer.

> If unauthorized firmware is placed on

> the device it will not function

https://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/UM/202108/2021081...

Discussion question: If something is immoral and debatably illegal, does documenting it in the quick start guide make it somehow less immoral? Or does that just mean it was documented?

You posed the following question:

> If nobody can read the EULA because it's 10 pages of densely written legalese, can they even be bound by it?

I explained to you that the premise of your question was flawed. I didn't comment on any other considerations beyond that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg

Imagine if the wrapper for a ream of paper said "by opening this wrapper, you agree to pay us $5 if you print double-sided on any of this paper". That's what EULA/ToS on things I already own feel like.

If you tamper with the device it's your responsibility, innit? It's not like they disabled a properly functioning device that uses the original firmware with an OTA update.

I'm pretty sure Ford would be in serious trouble if it deliberately bricked the entertainment system when you change the oil outside of a dealership.

If you mess with the central electronics of the car I'm sure the car could choose to disable itself and they wouldn't owe you a cent.

They would likely fall afoul of EU right-to-repair laws.

There is in my opinion a difference between a car and a phone.

If a car fails, people can die. If a phone fails, it normally doesn't have a huge impact.

If a car disables itself, because the central electronics were messed with by laymans, not some repair shop, it is in my opinion totally okay, as it would otherwise endanger humans.

But for a phone/other non-critical electronics, there is in my opinion no reason why its functionality should be reduced, just because you did something harmless like unlocking the bootloader. (In this case, the camera could still make photos, just without the fancy patented/copyrighted algorithms)

Is that a legal distinction where you live? If not, this all needs to be phrased in the context of “I think this is reasonable and am advocating for legislation with my elected representatives”.

Thanks, rephrased it a bit to make it obvious

Yeah, I’m with you in spirit but it’s a tough fight with some very entrenched interests.

> If you tamper with the device it's your responsibility, innit? It's not like they disabled a properly functioning device that uses the original firmware with an OTA update

And more to the point, Samsung is under no obligation to allow bootloader unlocking at all, much less ensure that it continues to provide any specific set of functionality.

The alternative here isn't "Samsung stops disabling the camera when the bootloader is unlocked," it's "Samsung stops allowing bootloader unlock."

This is always the game with Android phones - you have to do your research to understand whether you can install your own software on them, and what might be lost if you do so. If you don't want a bunch of headaches, just buy a Pixel series straight from Google.

It's not up to Samsung to allow bootloader unlock or not. There will be exploits that will allow for a bootloader unlock or worse unless they allow for it.

Besides, we don't have to be happy with the status quo, we can legislate for bootloader unlocking to be allowed.

> Besides, we don't have to be happy with the status quo, we can legislate for bootloader unlocking to be allowed

Unfortunately, that's not the world we actually live in. This thread is in response to the (great?) grandparent who suggested:

> On the surface this seems blatantly illegal: after the sale is made the no-longer-owner removes functionality

Our governments may theoretically have the power to force vendors to provide functionality like this to end users, but it's hard to imagine that actually happening (can you imagine how hard Apple would lobby against unlocking iPhones, for example?).

The only thing we can do is stop buying devices from vendors who exhibit such user-hostile behaviors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com