4 ms·

This feels like they don't want to be liable if someone roots a phone, installs malware or something, sells it to another person, and then proceeds to exploit t

This feels like they don't want to be liable if someone roots a phone, installs malware or something, sells it to another person, and then proceeds to exploit the compromised phone they just sold. Which would be entirely understandable. IDK if that's what this is, or if this is the best way to do that. edit: in a way, once you do this it's not "a motorola phone" anymore. They are selling you a device and software configuration together branded as the motorola whatever. If you modify that, it's not what they sold you, but they have no way to note to the secondary market that the device is not what they intended it to be. It's not a visible change. Again, no idea if this is the right way to stop that (I'm guessing not), but I can also see where they would be upset about this. edit 2: Setting aside the "we don't want to be liable" idea. It could also be a "we don't want to support this device anymore" idea. We do this sort of thing all the time - you did what with our code? Sorry dude you're on your own. Again, why do it this way. But maybe.

Zak 3y ago
I'm wondering how many used Windows PCs have been sold with malware on them, and whether anyone has ever attempted to hold the OEM legally responsible for it.
- saxonww 3y ago
  Let me be clear: I think it would be ridiculous to do that. But a lot of what I read about that's "our lawyers said to do this" comes off as ridiculous to me. And some court decisions I read about, and the reasoning, seem ridiculous to me. So I don't trust that anything legal-ish that seems ridiculous to me is not legitimate.
- ysofunny 3y ago
  I wonder how many USB storage devices have had their firmware infected without anybody ever even knowing about it like SD cards and other sorts of storage devices with embedded microcomputers; why storage? for a huge binary payload for the host system! all it takes is one super secret 64-bit instruction that makes the cpu drop its pants and bend over, or one super secret exploit
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tw04 3y ago
That doesn't really make sense either though. If you buy a brand new Ford, and punch a hole in the brake lines on purpose, then sell the car - Ford isn't getting sued by the buyer when something horrible happens. They have 0 liability, and are under no obligation to put in measures to prevent you from damaging the brake lines. Someone jailbreaking a phone, then installing malware sounds like a great way for the seller to face criminal and civil crimes, but I don't see why Motorola is under ANY responsibility for the state of the device after initial sale unless it's refurbished by Motorola.
- saxonww 3y ago
  I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation? Like I said in another comment, I think it's ridiculous. I'm just open to the idea that they are doing it to protect themselves rather than trying to give (I assume) a very very small minority of their users the finger.
  - tw04 3y ago
    >I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation? I'm not aware of any example of a company getting sued for consumer safety due to a consumer buying a good, modifying it in a way to cause intentional harm, then reselling it to another party. I would be absolutely fascinated to read if someone has an example of it. There's a lot of things our legal system gets wrong, but that would be absolute insanity. No business would be able to function with what is essentially unlimited liability.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety Not for tampering by a previous owner. You can do that with a laptop
8note 3y ago
If you buy it second hand, I don't see why you'd have a warranty regardless. The manufacturer has a contract with the original buyer; they never made an agreement with the secondary buyer
- samatman 3y ago
  Warranties are frequently transferable, in point of fact.

Zak 3y ago

I'm wondering how many used Windows PCs have been sold with malware on them, and whether anyone has ever attempted to hold the OEM legally responsible for it.

saxonww 3y ago
Let me be clear: I think it would be ridiculous to do that. But a lot of what I read about that's "our lawyers said to do this" comes off as ridiculous to me. And some court decisions I read about, and the reasoning, seem ridiculous to me. So I don't trust that anything legal-ish that seems ridiculous to me is not legitimate.
ysofunny 3y ago
I wonder how many USB storage devices have had their firmware infected without anybody ever even knowing about it like SD cards and other sorts of storage devices with embedded microcomputers; why storage? for a huge binary payload for the host system! all it takes is one super secret 64-bit instruction that makes the cpu drop its pants and bend over, or one super secret exploit

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tw04 3y ago

That doesn't really make sense either though. If you buy a brand new Ford, and punch a hole in the brake lines on purpose, then sell the car - Ford isn't getting sued by the buyer when something horrible happens. They have 0 liability, and are under no obligation to put in measures to prevent you from damaging the brake lines. Someone jailbreaking a phone, then installing malware sounds like a great way for the seller to face criminal and civil crimes, but I don't see why Motorola is under ANY responsibility for the state of the device after initial sale unless it's refurbished by Motorola.

saxonww 3y ago
I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation? Like I said in another comment, I think it's ridiculous. I'm just open to the idea that they are doing it to protect themselves rather than trying to give (I assume) a very very small minority of their users the finger.
- tw04 3y ago
  >I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation? I'm not aware of any example of a company getting sued for consumer safety due to a consumer buying a good, modifying it in a way to cause intentional harm, then reselling it to another party. I would be absolutely fascinated to read if someone has an example of it. There's a lot of things our legal system gets wrong, but that would be absolute insanity. No business would be able to function with what is essentially unlimited liability.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety Not for tampering by a previous owner. You can do that with a laptop

8note 3y ago

If you buy it second hand, I don't see why you'd have a warranty regardless. The manufacturer has a contract with the original buyer; they never made an agreement with the secondary buyer

samatman 3y ago
Warranties are frequently transferable, in point of fact.