Samsung May Permanently Disable Galaxy Note 7 Phones In The US As Soon As Next Week (theverge.com)

Those who are still clinging on to their Galaxy Note 7, even after Samsung recalled the devices due to faulty batteries in mid-September, may want to seriously reconsider returning them to the Korean company. The Verge has obtained an image of an alert that went out to at least one Note 7 owner on U.S. Cellular today stating that, "As of December 15th, Samsung will modify the software to prevent the Galaxy Note 7 from charging. The phone will no longer work." The Verge reports: It's not clear whether Note 7s will be disabled across the major U.S. carriers as well, but it seems likely that'll be the case. In the past, updates disabling Note 7 features have rolled out across Verizon, ATT, and other carriers within a matter of days. That's probably what'll happen here, as well. By preventing the phone from charging, Samsung takes the final step to making the phone entirely unusable. It's still offering Note 7 owners the ability to fully return the phone or exchange it for another Samsung device. As of November 4th, when Samsung last provided an update, 85 percent of Note 7s sold in the U.S. had been recovered. That still left around 285,000 phones unaccounted for. Completely disabling the phone seems to be Samsung's last-ditch effort to either recover the remaining devices or remove what risk they still pose to consumers.

Comments

you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they are fire hazards, this isn't right, you no longer own your own devices. I didn't realize I was leasing my fire starter brick :(

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Jzanu]

Samsung pays for returns. The phones are disabled at the carrier. Otherwise you can keep your brick/bomb. In civilized countries you are not allowed items that endanger the public with no other function.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[DarkOx]

I really hope an owner will challenge this in court. It should NOT be legal for an manufacturer to intentionally damage something they sold you, even if it is in your best interest.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Jzanu]

US courts have already ruled the opposite. In 2009 and earlier.

Re: you no longer own your devices

[Midnight Thunder]

Then again they would probably prefer to be in court for that, than for one of their phones causing bodily harm. There is a fair chance they would win, given even the FAA considers it a danger.

Adding to this that a recent analysis indicates that the battery stress tolerances in the phone are beyond acceptable, it would they work out to be a potentially ticking time bomb.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[itsme1234]

They should be forced to reimburse you the full price of the item they damaged. That will teach them. Oh wait...

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't linking to a court-ruling and the page you're linking to is almost content-free anyway.
If you accidentally posted the wrong link, please post the correct one, with a snippet of relevant text copied in your comment.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[jareth-0205]

you are not allowed items that endanger the public with no other function.

How do you get to that conclusion? Clearly it has functions.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Jzanu]

That is the correct site, you just have to click links to PDF files and read, if you are able to read.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Kierthos]

Paperweight for documents you really don't care about.
Pocket hand warmer (bandages not included).
Plate for your Hot Pocket.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Jzanu]

In active safety recall it has been carrier disabled for faulty hardware. It has no other function.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[ranton]

How ironic that we are quick to label countries who constantly find themselves involved in warfare as "civilized".

While I may wish it wasn't so, I see no indication from history that civilization and warfare are diametrically opposed.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[The-Ixian]

The scary thing here is not the safety aspects it is the access aspects.

I think that everyone would agree that if Samsung were to send out a couple of thugs to enter your home without your consent or knowledge in order to disable the device, this would be wrong. Yet, the same thing done electronically is just fine apparently...

Access to your network stops at the firewall. Any unauthorized access beyond that point is B&E.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[ranton]

They should be forced to reimburse you the full price of the item they damaged. That will teach them. Oh wait...

And reimburse you for any cancellation fees for any carrier plans you may have signed up for, and replace your old phone for the same price you traded it in for. Lets not pretend Samsung fully reimbursed their Note 7 customers.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Jzanu]

The cellular network belongs to the carrier, and are clearly giving Samsung this permission.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[jareth-0205]

In active safety recall it has been carrier disabled for faulty hardware. It has no other function.

Without mobile network access it still has bluetooth, wifi, plays games. It's a fully functioning computer. You're showing a colossal lack of imagination.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Jzanu]

Yet the device is not designed for that primarily, so there is not loss of targeted functions. This is a mandatory safety recall for the real risk the model poses.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

kill yourself you statist piece of shit

Re:you no longer own your devices

[aicrules]

The Geneva Conventions exist to make warfare civilized. While that may seem contradictory, it isn't. It's the difference between stabbing someone in the kidney because they dared talk to your girl and asking them if they would like to step outside because of it. Yeah, still not a very pleasant activity, but things like not using nerve agents and land mines make it as civil as a fight (war) can be.

Re: you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Civilized countries would never let you own/use dangerous objects on a regular basis, like: cars/motorcycles, handguns, fireworks, oxygen tanks, power tools, etc. Stop being irresponsible and endangering the public with your Note 7!

In other news, regurgitated fear mongering/propaganda geared to erode personal rights diminishes while rational independent thought and objective risk assessment with focus on personal rights prevails. Or maybe not...

Re:you no longer own your devices

[aardvarkjoe]

This is a mandatory safety recall for the real risk the model poses.

Nobody disputes that. But the statement:

It has no other function.

Is absolutely moronic.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Wrath0fb0b]

This is the exact logical flip-side of not being able to sign away your various rights, a policy that much (not all) of /. seems to be strongly in favor of.

For instance, in this case, there's no legal structure ('merican here) that would allow Samsung to propose that you can keep your phone in exchange for a waiver of liability for the defects in the product. So basically, the claim of "I want to own my device" implies that (a) you can turn down their request to swap it for a non-exploding device and (b) they are still liable if it explodes and kills a schoolbus full of kids.

No sane company would agree to that arrangement.

[ Or to put it another way, they can't stipulate that it's not a phone now but a fire-starter brick whose intended function is to explode. That's not how product liability law works. And we have to understand that by placing non-dischargeable legal responsibilities onto companies, we have changed the relationship between the company and the consumer. For the better, I think -- the world was much worse in the era of caveat emptor. ]

Re:you no longer own your devices

[houghi]

I live in Europe. If I like I can buy swords and guns if I so desire (I don't). The fact that you say "with no other function" is meaningless, because "I bought it and it is mine" is another function.

Re: you no longer own your devices

[davidshewitt]

Well said. The fact that Samsung (and other manufacturers) can brick your devices remotely is disturbing. Even PC's are not safe from this sort of thing anymore thanks to Windows 10. What's disturbing is that this capability could be used for any reason at any time.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[msk]

Please copy the text you believe is relevant to your position.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[vel-ex-tech]

Honestly not sure if you're a shill or not either, but I'd like to point this out. People who bought one of these, though they might be a general purpose computer, actually leased a locked-down closed-source proprietary device that has only the purpose of doing what its owners want it to do.

Sure, according to the terms of the lease, if you complete your payments, you get to continue using it, but it quickly becomes obsolete. Newer software will refuse to install, not because the hardware is incapable of running it, but simply because its version number is too low. Now, of course there are changes in the underlying Android APIs from version to version, but note that there is no way to get the updated Android on your old phone. Now, you can void the terms of your lease by "hacking" it (CyanogenMod or what have you) and generally there's no enforcement there, but that's what it is.

When you don't have root on your device, you don't own it. I hope that this right here with carriers remotely "bricking" (it's probably not bricked per se) your leased device is a good lesson in this for a lot of people.

otoh I'm not holding my breath.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that include... Guns?
How does that stack up with your statement? After all, they endanger the public. That is what they are designed for isn't it? You know, to kill people.

Re: you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

On behalf of everyone else who shares your opinion and wants to see the info please stop insulting us

Re:you no longer own your devices

[geekmux]

The Geneva Conventions exist to make warfare civilized. While that may seem contradictory, it isn't. It's the difference between stabbing someone in the kidney because they dared talk to your girl and asking them if they would like to step outside because of it. Yeah, still not a very pleasant activity, but things like not using nerve agents and land mines make it as civil as a fight (war) can be.

Killing another human is hardly defined as a "civilized" activity. Only when society deems it somehow justified is it acceptable.

For thousands of years we humans have been rather busy killing each other in order to prove what happens after you die. That tends to make a scavenger hunt for WMDs look like a booger by comparison, and I'd say our ability to define justified is about as good as our ability to be civil towards each other.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[DRJlaw]

That is the correct site, you just have to click links to PDF files and read, if you are able to read.

Here's the thing. I can read. I read documents like this for a living. In this case, I can read the heading "Guidelines and Requirements for Mandatory Recall Notices," the notices of proposed rulemaking for "Guidelines and Requirements for Mandatory Recall Notices," the final rule for "Guidelines and Requirements for Mandatory Recall Notices," and search the text of the PDFs (example) and understand that you are not linking to the "correct site."

The problem here is each and every one deals solely with human readable text to be included in recall notices, not an authorization to disable the operational capability of or otherwise deny access to a recalled device owned by a consumer.

While I personally don't have anything against this plan, posting links to irrelevant material and claiming that it authorizes the plan "if you are able to read" is bullshit.

Specifically identify the legal support by document name and page number, at a minimum, or STFU.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[marcox901]

Yeah that is right. Carrier should replace the phone. Oh am I missing something?

Re:you no longer own your devices

[aicrules]

It's not a binary definition. Will there be an advanced human civilization in the future that is devoid of war? Maybe. But committing to settle differences violently while following a set of rules (only kill uniformed soldiers) still makes it more civil than just marauding through a country raping and killing everyone you see.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

So here's the dilemma. This is a legal question.

As a manufacturer, if I leave active a device I have the ability to shut down AND said device blows up and causes injury/death/destruction, who is accountable? Manufacturer, who asked owner to turnoff/return phone? Owner, who did not do so but says it is his device and to do what he/she pleases?

Cars are the biggest and examples of recalls on devices that can cause death/destruction. If I choose not to get my car fixed for free during a recall and that defect causes death/damage/injury, who is liable? Until recently (and even now), most cars cannot be disabled remotely so this would be an interesting comparison.

  I can see Samsung trying to avoid any liability from leftover phones exploding and killing people.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

The Geneva Conventions exist to make warfare civilized. While that may seem contradictory, it isn't. It's the difference between stabbing someone in the kidney because they dared talk to your girl and asking them if they would like to step outside because of it. Yeah, still not a very pleasant activity, but things like not using nerve agents and land mines make it as civil as a fight (war) can be.

Killing another human is hardly defined as a "civilized" activity. Only when society deems it somehow justified is it acceptable.

For thousands of years we humans have been rather busy killing each other in order to prove what happens after you die. That tends to make a scavenger hunt for WMDs look like a booger by comparison, and I'd say our ability to define justified is about as good as our ability to be civil towards each other.

Well a lot of the Geneva convections are actually specific rules to prevent you from killing people during a war.

They include things like prohibiting targeting marked medical personel and equipment, prohibiting the execution staving and tourture of prisoners of war, etc.

This is "civilized" ins the sense that by signing on you get the benefit of reasonable expectation that your soldiers will benefit from the rules at the cost of you having to also play by them. Much like being part of civilization means you get the benefit of being able to own property at the cost of also having to respect your neighbor's property rights. It's that "social contract" thing John Lock was talking about.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

>Otherwise you can keep your brick/bomb. In civilized countries you are not allowed items that endanger the public with no other function.

You mean civilized societies like North Korea that disarm their citizens entirely?

Because I'm Canadian and I can buy shotguns, swords, and other excitingly dangerous things where the only primary purpose is killing stuff. I believe this is the case across Europe, Australia, Japan, and every other first world country, as well.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[houstonbofh]

Viagra was not designed to improve erections. It was a heart medication with an interesting side effect at first. That does not mean that it has no use. And if you can remote disable devices belonging to other people, that is scary, whatever the reason. Because with that ability, we can always find more reasons.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[houstonbofh]

You need to look up incidental and consequential damages. Like renewed two year contracts.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[geekmux]

The Geneva Conventions exist to make warfare civilized. While that may seem contradictory, it isn't. It's the difference between stabbing someone in the kidney because they dared talk to your girl and asking them if they would like to step outside because of it. Yeah, still not a very pleasant activity, but things like not using nerve agents and land mines make it as civil as a fight (war) can be.

Killing another human is hardly defined as a "civilized" activity. Only when society deems it somehow justified is it acceptable.

For thousands of years we humans have been rather busy killing each other in order to prove what happens after you die. That tends to make a scavenger hunt for WMDs look like a booger by comparison, and I'd say our ability to define justified is about as good as our ability to be civil towards each other.

Well a lot of the Geneva convections are actually specific rules to prevent you from killing people during a war.

They include things like prohibiting targeting marked medical personel and equipment, prohibiting the execution staving and tourture of prisoners of war, etc.

This is "civilized" ins the sense that by signing on you get the benefit of reasonable expectation that your soldiers will benefit from the rules at the cost of you having to also play by them. Much like being part of civilization means you get the benefit of being able to own property at the cost of also having to respect your neighbor's property rights. It's that "social contract" thing John Lock was talking about.

You are correct. This is a more palatable form of warfare. To call it civilized pushes the very boundaries of that word.

And while we're busy making bloodshed more palatable, perhaps the correct "social contract" that leans towards a civilized society is addressing how to avoid bloodshed altogether.

Somehow I feel that will never happen because in the end, bloodshed is a highly profitable business.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that is right. Carrier should replace the phone. Oh am I missing something?

That the entire model was recalled so they don't have the ability to replace a customer's unit with a non-defective one of the same model.

They are instead offering the monetary value of the unit in the exchange but some people aren't taking it, so they are also going to render the model harmless with a firmware update. Which will also render it useless so they're telling people to trade them in because they're going to become unless.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Solandri]

At this point, I suspect most of the people hanging on to theirs are doing so in the hopes that in 20 years it'll be extremely valuable because of its rarity. Trying to disable it over the network is going to accomplish nothing because these units are turned off, packed back in their original box, and sealed in shrink wrap or a ziploc bag.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[itsme1234]

I don't know why you and your brother post focus so much on phones bought on contract! If you did so then the provider is the seller and the entity with which you have a sale contract and a telecommunications contract or 2-in-one or whatever labels or combinations they come up with. They should be the ones on the hook for making you whole, as opposed to some company from another continent with which you never had a contract to start with.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[spire3661]

Remove the battery, it is no longer a risk. Its still a very fully featured computer that could be embedded into lots of things. Better than them all going into landfill.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a binary definition. Will there be an advanced human civilization in the future that is devoid of war? Maybe. But committing to settle differences violently while following a set of rules (only kill uniformed soldiers) still makes it more civil than just marauding through a country raping and killing everyone you see.

Committing to it doesn't mean shit unless you actually follow through and only kill uniformed soldiers. Renaming them as insurgents or terrorists and then kidnapping/torturing/killing them doesn't allow you keep the civilized label...

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

retard

Re: you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Those so called bombs vanakr phone calls so they do have other functions. So with the hyperbole

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you're one of those "guns are ONLY made for killing people" idiots, aren't you...

Re:you no longer own your devices

[sabri]

Remove the battery, it is no longer a risk.

You're free to do that. The Samsung update disable the charging capability, that's it. As long as you plug it into a power source, you can use it for your embedded purpose.

Re: you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, most smart phones are designed primarily for that function otherwise we wouldn't see constant upgrades being pushed out. Supporting mobile data and calls alone don't require such frequent device design changes.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone own a smartphone, if its running Android, Windows, iPhone, whathaveyouproprietary?

It seems a 90's concept, only applied to Linux computers.

Re: you no longer own your devices

[JeffDeptola]

Perhaps. But those decisions are left to duly elected officials, ultimately responsible to the people. They haven't received a request or a mandate to perform this function. In this case, a company is deciding they know what's best for you, and are breaking your equipment on purpose. I'm pretty sure I can't just walk up to a note 7 owner, grab the phone out of his hand and smash it on the ground.

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Gussington]

Samsung pays for returns. The phones are disabled at the carrier. Otherwise you can keep your brick/bomb. In civilized countries you are not allowed items that endanger the public with no other function.

My understanding is that the issue is not the phone but the battery, ie the battery is too densely packed so a fire risk. Couldn't Samsung build a smaller capacity battery so that millions of device can still be safely used?

Re:you no longer own your devices

[Gussington]

Yet the device is not designed for that primarily, so there is not loss of targeted functions. This is a mandatory safety recall for the real risk the model poses.

I argue otherwise. Despite being called a "phone", most people's primary use of their device is not a phone. And even when making calls or messaging, a lot of people use data based apps, not the cellular based comms.

Great that they can control your property

[NotInHere]

This time, they use it for good, but what when its used for bad?

Re:Great that they can control your property

[MightyYar]

I'm fairly certain it is impossible to have a self-updating OS on a device and also prevent the controller of the self-update process from installing malware. So, I'd say there is nothing wrong with the system at the moment and our rage is best withheld until such time that they actually abuse their power.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[RivenAleem]

I expect you would have a consumer group or watchdog with which you can lodge a complaint. At least that is how it work in the EU.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[CeasedCaring]

You mean like the time Amazon erased "1984" & "Animal Farm" from EVERYONE'S Kindle? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07...

Re:Great that they can control your property

[Anonymous Coward]

those were pirated copies from non-legit sellers and Amazon refunded the money and you still had the option to buy from the legit publisher

Re:Great that they can control your property

[Kjella]

I'm fairly certain it is impossible to have a self-updating OS on a device and also prevent the controller of the self-update process from installing malware. So, I'd say there is nothing wrong with the system at the moment and our rage is best withheld until such time that they actually abuse their power.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here, the question is whether it's okay to have automatically self-updating systems where the company that manufactured it by default has full control over it, regardless of whether the owner actually wants the updates or want to apply them now or if critical security updates are baked into huge system upgrades. It's a big trend but I don't think it's a good trend, tomorrow Microsoft can shut down your computer, Samsung your smart-TV, Google your cell phone, Tesla your car, Kindle your eBook-reader and so on. If you go all IoT or "smart house" pretty much anything you own can shut down because somebody out there wants it to. Granted, we're also quite fucked if the bank freezes our bank accounts and all the utilities shut you off, but we're expanding it to everything. It's another way to hollow out what ownership is and means.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[jareth-0205]

those were pirated copies from non-legit sellers and Amazon refunded the money and you still had the option to buy from the legit publisher

So? If they had accidentally sold you a physical book they would have no right to come into your house and take it back.

The more things we have that become digital, the more we are going to have to start applying property rights to them.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[Anonymous Coward]

> This time, they use it for good, but what when its used for bad?

Nah. They'll always use it for good (as seen in UK and German surveillance laws recently, what is "good" can be adjusted post fact).

Re:Great that they can control your property

[fustakrakich]

The more things we have that become digital, the more we are going to have to start applying property rights to them.

Slippery slope alert... Just turn off automatic updates. And if the carrier turns off your signal, you can still use the wifi and you'll have a nice mini tablet..

Re:Great that they can control your property

[jareth-0205]

Slippery slope alert... Just turn off automatic updates. And if the carrier turns off your signal, you can still use the wifi and you'll have a nice mini tablet..

Eh?? How is this a "slippery slope", I'm not describing a possible future escalation, we're talking about a thing that *Actually Happened*. A book that was bought in good faith was unbought by the seller. That would not be possible with a physical product.

As for the Galaxy Note, you don't actually know that this will be a refusable update, it is technically possible that the remote bricking can happen if you want it or not. You should not have to anticipate (and defend against) your device vendor turning against you, nor is it realistic to ask a normal person to know to do that. This is exactly the sort of reason we have consumer protection laws for.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[sethaw]

Amazon wouldn't but the owner of the book would have the right to reclaim their property. If you refuse they could come into your house and take it back. It would end up being the same as if you bought stolen property, the rightful owner is entitled to get the item back. The only reason they wouldn't raid your house to reclaim the item is because it isn't worth the trouble and expense for a $10 item.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[fustakrakich]

You should not have to anticipate (and defend against) your device vendor turning against you

Should not, would not, could not... The thing is that you do have to anticipate for those things, and that isn't about to change anytime soon. So prepare and protect yourself the best you can. And vote for politicians that will legislate real consumer protection with teeth. We could start with mandating removable batteries in all devices, or at least be able to physically disconnect them from the circuitry. Unfortunately that is not the direction we are presently headed. I guess we just have to suck it up

Re:Great that they can control your property

[jareth-0205]

Hm, you might actually be right here. Though I think it's a bit more murky with copyright law vs physical objects.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[MightyYar]

I'm not putting the cart before the horse, I'm simply being pragmatic. As long as self-updating phones exist, you cannot prevent the pusher from doing nasty things. If you are worried about nasty things, get a phone that doesn't self update. Or disable the automatic updates (if your carrier has that option). Or download "Package Disabler Pro" and stop the Samsung update service. Or root it. But I think at this point both the carriers and the major vendors seem to be of the opinion that a bunch of unpatched phones out in the wild is bad for business.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference in the examples you cite: In the case of a utility or a bank, you are being provided a service for fee and your usage of that service depends on the fee you are charged. You aren't buying an item you can hold in your hand. In the case of a computer, cell phone, Tesla, Kindle, and so on: you are buying an item. Some of these items require a fee for a full feature set (software subscription, cell service) but it's still your damn item.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck that.

Ask for permission > Ask for forgiveness

Just because Bubba hasn't raped your ass yet doesn't mean you should keep bending over when he's around.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[wbr1]

This is not the same in the slightest. While I agree that we need to pay close attention to property rights for consumers, this case makes sense.

A vendor was selling illegal copies of the works digitally on amazon. The looked as if they had been canned in from paper copies, and the seller did not have rights.

Amazon pulled the digital copies - from users - AND REFUNDED. Consumers were then free to pick up a real, verified, licensed copy.

This was not censorship on Amazon's part, and in some ways was protecting the consumer from an inferior, potentially edited copy.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[spire3661]

Irrelevant. Copyright is NOT THAT IMPORTANT to the point they have to erase works like that. You are justifying the ridiculous monster copyright has become.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[MightyYar]

I've found the opposite in many cases. Asking for permission is a form of CYA and responsibility dodging. Often if you want something done you need to man up and just do it. In this case, we tried the whole "let people be in charge of their computers" thing for 30 or 40 years. The vast majority of people let things slide, and so I can't blame companies for the approach they are taking. But if they start prison raping us, yeah we should probably push back. As a practical matter, if you give 2 shits you can disable the auto updating - even on the Galaxy Note 7. Most people don't give a shit, thus the original problem.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[Zaphoddd]

Hear hear.

Its the frog in hot water example for most people - they just can't see the noose - its just too big for their minds right now.

But imagine you get in your car tomorrow to find that Nissan disabled it from the factory. Or you go to turn on your TV and Sony had disabled your TV because it was doing something they didn't like. Or even better - you go to use the Weather App or the MP3 Player App - and over night Sony sent an update to Disable them.
This kind of behavior is nuts. Its ludicrous. We can't accept it anymore than we would accept going in for an oil change, and mechanic removing the radio and turn the car into a 3 cylinder because the manufacturer mandated some Emissions changes. Now imagine they go door to door, with masterkeys to all the cars - this is what is happening

Remember - you own the thing. It is yours. We are on the verge of a 'slow quiet takeover' of the meaning of ownership.
https://www.extremetech.com/co...

Its just the beginning.. they have all the power to do this.

Re:Great that they can control your property

[Zaphoddd]

Slightly different..

I bought a fake rolex from a guy on the street on a vacation to NYC.
Customs comes to my house in Monowi Nebraska, opens the doors with a key, goes to my bedroom, finds my watch on my dresser and takes it.
The semantics are important. Simply because we let them have the keys (to our devices) does not mean we have given permission. They will use every power we give them. Its our job to define what is abuse.

Fuck Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case there was any doubt about who owns those phones...

Fire Hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

Great 285,000 potential bombs around the US courtesy of Samsung.

Speculatively, they are probably phones that aren't actually in the US, eg they were black-market or grey-market exported outside the US. eg phones brought back into mainland China via smuggling, or sent to South America via smuggling to get past import tariffs.

Realisticly, they're probably unsold stock in some third-party reseller's warehouse. If Samsung was really concerned about this, they would check all the IMEI's of every device returned, figure out who they sold the missing IMEI's to and ask the wireless carriers to locate the subscribers with those devices. It's very possible that they are in the hands of prepaid customers who can not afford to swap the device.

Re:Fire Hazard

[Drethon]

Great 285,000 potential bombs around the US courtesy of Samsung.

Yeah, nothing could be nearly as bad as the fire risk posed by these phones in the wild: http://www.nfpa.org/public-edu...

That rarest of events

[onyxruby]

An actual case where the manufacturer is disabling the product in the best interest of the public. Who knows when we'll see it's like again. Someday you'll get to tell your kids about the day this happened...

Re:That rarest of events

[geekmux]

An actual case where the manufacturer is disabling the product in the best interest of the public. Who knows when we'll see it's like again. Someday you'll get to tell your kids about the day this happened...

When you ask?

It is unfortunate that I see the rising "value" of mass censorship as being heralded as some kind of good thing these days, so I see this type of tool coming soon to a Freedom near you, gift-wrapped in pretty best-interest paper...

Re:That rarest of events

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knows when we'll see it's like again.

The Robot Riots of 2057 I wager, but only after thousands of flesh-bags have been killed.

Re:That rarest of events

[OneHundredAndTen]

An actual case where the manufacturer is disabling the product in the best interest of the public.

In their own interest. If more of their ridiculous phones explode, the lawsuits that Samsung would have to deal with would be epic.

Re:That rarest of events

[dstyle5]

How is this not in the public's best interest? I certainly don't want to be in a hotel, apartment building, at work, on public transit, etc. with some dumbass who has steadfastly refused to return their phone and poses a risk to me and others. Even driving to work some idiot might panic if the phone starts on fire and cause a car accident. This is most definitely in the public's best interest and should've happened sooner, IMHO.

Re:That rarest of events

[Threni]

This is pretty similar to manufacturers/networks not developing/releasing updates for Android phones which other devices (typically nexus/pixel devices) have, making them less secure.

Re:That rarest of events

[Gussington]

When you ask?

It is unfortunate that I see the rising "value" of mass censorship as being heralded as some kind of good thing these days

Wibble, wibble. Regulations are what separates civilised society from the jungle.

so I see this type of tool coming soon to a Freedom near you, gift-wrapped in pretty best-interest paper...

Real freedom means someone stronger and faster than you gets to kill you and take your stuff at will. You think that is a better situation?

Re:That rarest of events

[kmbss]

Yes I do. That way I control my environment. I don't need others to do that for me. I'll choose what's best for me and accept all risks. I'm not a child that needs constant supervision. I'm a man.

Re:That rarest of events

[Gussington]

Yes I do. That way I control my environment. I don't need others to do that for me. I'll choose what's best for me and accept all risks. I'm not a child that needs constant supervision. I'm a man.

No you don't. You don't have to face most of those risks because someone else is already protecting you from them.
Your perception of freedom is laughable. Perhaps you should go spend some time is a really free environment like Afghanistan or Syria and see how you manhood holds up under truly free conditions? The USA or any western country is like a Fisher Price playpen by comparison.

Re:That rarest of events

[kmbss]

Anarchy isn't freedom. How you were taught that or somehow came to that conclusion is simply wrong. Two entirely different concepts that don't simultaneously exist as you suggest.

Re:That rarest of events

[Gussington]

Anarchy isn't freedom. How you were taught that or somehow came to that conclusion is simply wrong. Two entirely different concepts that don't simultaneously exist as you suggest.

Of course it does. Regulations are what prevent the anarchy. You can go too far one way or to far the other, but claiming you are in complete control of all external forces and don't need others to do it for you is childish. "I'll choose what works best for me" only works until you meet someone else that has the exact same opinion and wants what you have.

Re:That rarest of events

[kmbss]

As I've stated I'm a man and accept that responsibility. I'm willing to kill or die to defend that freedom. I'm a good friend to many a great friend to a few but above all I'm an excellent enemy. I actually enjoy confrontation. It's part of life and I expect it.

Re:That rarest of events

[Gussington]

As I've stated I'm a man and accept that responsibility. I'm willing to kill or die to defend that freedom. I'm a good friend to many a great friend to a few but above all I'm an excellent enemy. I actually enjoy confrontation. It's part of life and I expect it.

Gee that's great, but you don't really. You live in a safe community provided to you by others then claim you're a big man in control of it all. As a comparison why don't you head over to Syria and see how you get on? Or maybe you aren't as manly as you think.

Re:That rarest of events

[kmbss]

As I've stated I'm a man and accept that responsibility. I'm willing to kill or die to defend that freedom. I'm a good friend to many a great friend to a few but above all I'm an excellent enemy. I actually enjoy confrontation. It's part of life and I expect it.

Gee that's great, but you don't really. You live in a safe community provided to you by others then claim you're a big man in control of it all. As a comparison why don't you head over to Syria and see how you get on? Or maybe you aren't as manly as you think.

I'm that man that speaks up and stops situations like Syria from happening in the first place. That type of situation was allowed to happen because nobody stood up for freedom. The government will take care of the people. That worked out fine didn't it? My ancestors fought tyranny from an oppressive government. Yes my family goes back to revolutionary war against a country called England. I'm guessing you know of that country. I'm a Swamp Yankee we don't tolerate oppression by any person or government.

Re:That rarest of events

[Gussington]

I'm that man that speaks up and stops situations like Syria from happening in the first place.

But it did happen, so how's that working out??

That type of situation was allowed to happen because nobody stood up for freedom. The government will take care of the people. That worked out fine didn't it?

You clearly know nothing of the subject matter. There are plenty of people standing up for freedom, and they are being murdered where they stand.
Sometimes if you wait for the action to start it's too late.

My ancestors fought tyranny from an oppressive government. Yes my family goes back to revolutionary war against a country called England. I'm guessing you know of that country. I'm a Swamp Yankee we don't tolerate oppression by any person or government.

Yes that all sounds very cute, but by western standards your average American citizen is already more oppressed, or do you think the illegal NSA spying, torture, drone strikes, and vast incarceration isn't tyranny? The bad guys aren't always going to walk down the street in a clearly defined uniform and announce their intentions. The oppression has already begun and don't seem to be tolerating that ok.

Re:That rarest of events

[kmbss]

You are one of those people that like to protest the wrongs of the world from behind your keyboard. I think in real life you don't stand up against anything. Protesting in your underwear is NOT protesting. My advice is to control what you can locally. Worrying about global problems isn't productive. The world is a crazy place. Humans in general are greedy self centered parasites. There is no fixing that. You'll be happier knowing that locally things aren't that bad if you get out there and ensure that things will be just fine. Adopt that attitude and stop with the doom and gloom routine.

One way or the other

[tomhath]

Samsung may permanently disable Galaxy Note 7 Phones before the phones designed by Samsung permanently disable themselves.

Interesting

[nehumanuscrede]

-tinfoilhat-

It does make you think a bit that if they have this ability, what's to keep any carrier from nudging down the percentage your phone will charge it's battery over time with each update ? With most batteries soldered in place, it would be a fantastic way to force folks to buy a new phone.

Crazy idea ? Of course it is, then again VW got caught red handed cheating the emissions systems via software. Remember, where money is involved, there is no limit to what companies are willing to do.

While I understand that batteries degrade over time, now I'm curious if it's truly the battery that's giving out or if the folks wanting to sell you more phones have a hand in it.

-/tinfoilhat-

Re:Interesting

[rmdingler]

If the technology exists to be used in an altruistic way, it exists to be exploited in malevolent fashion.

There is little doubt this ability has been or will be exploited, and don't forget, extensive and intrusive government surveillance was discounted as tin-hatter prior to Edward Snowden.

Re:Interesting

[dlb101010]

No tinfoil hat needed. I used to run printer ink cartridges until they ran dry. No big deal. Just change the cartridge and reprint the last half-printed page. Either it was after an update or purchasing a new printer, I forget, but suddenly the printer was the one deciding when the ink had to be changed, refusing to print in any color until it was. Considering the last paged printed was fine, I assume there was at least some ink left. (That was a few years ago, and it was the last inkjet printer I owned.)

Re:Interesting

[cdrudge]

It depends on how the ink cartridge/print head is designed. Some ink cartridges have the print head built in. Since you typically throw them away when they are empty, running them dry and damaging them isn't really much of a concern.

If the print head assembly is separate from the ink tank, running them dry can result in clogged jets or transfer pads. They might be recoverable if replacement ink is added to dissolve the dried ink. Or it can result in more expensive replacement parts.

Re:Interesting

[houghi]

To me VW passed the tests. To me the tests where at fault. And this was possible all along. You get updates for your phone on a regular basis, sop they can introduce any code they desire.
But why do that with updates? Just program it in from the beginning. Make it crash when it is EOL+2months.

Re:Interesting

[guruevi]

That's exactly why we need open source software. I'm a long time iOS user (for usability reasons) but anything I'm hanging my business on in form of mobile has to be either pure Linux or AOSP-capable Android. I'm even thinking about upgrading out of the iDevice for personal items given that Android 8 or 9 gets a usable input mechanism and AOSP hardware without ANY capacitive buttons (hardware buttons like iOS don't get triggered by hovering over them).

Yes, I do compile my own Android and will send back the device if it's locked down.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that 3 months after a new iPhone is released, my current one suddenly stops keeping a charge?

Really?

[freak0fnature]

I never understood their decisions...why disable the phone when you can redesign the battery to not blow up and just swap batteries? I mean the battery is a removable part.

Re:Really?

[CeasedCaring]

Not outside of a workshop, these days.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

whoosh

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm not mistaken, the underlying problem seems to be the way the battery is forced into the case with not enough room to expand, and this is what's causing them to rupture and explode. So, changing the battery won't make a difference unless you get a smaller one (which most people won't do even if they can get one that fits properly).

Re:Really?

[rmdingler]

I never understood their decisions...why disable the phone when you can redesign the battery to not blow up and just swap batteries? I mean the battery is a removable part.

They actually gave the battery angle a look for a quick fix, but since they had abandoned the easily removable battery, the initial solution was to limit recharging to 60% of maximum via update.

Now, is the ingrained ability to limit charging capacity a little suspicious?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No?

It's part and parcel with all lithium ion batteries that the charge circuitry *must& limit charging or the thing explodes. That's how these chargers work. Many might have hardware limits in place, but if you have a pretty amazing processor running firmware already, it's probably cheaper (in terms of number of transistors) to just use that and some firmware instead of dedicated hardware.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think that they had learned but no the samsung galaxy 8 will also have a sealed non replaceable battery.

So it can be waterproof up until you drop it for the first time.

Re:Really?

[Ol Olsoc]

I never understood their decisions...why disable the phone when you can redesign the battery to not blow up and just swap batteries? I mean the battery is a removable part.

Apparently the battery is too big physically for the space allotted for it. Batteries expand when heated/charged. A teardown revealed this https://www.cnet.com/news/gala... (beware, the assholes have an autoplaying video.

This is all redolent of the marketing issues I've often spoke about with phones. "Users need longer battery life! Users need thinner phones! Users need wireless charging!"

Size and battery capacity are opposing traits. And while compressing a Li based battery of high energy density is never a good idea, they designed a phone that did just that. reducing the margin of error to no margin of error, and when you get a positive feedback loop like a battery expanding with nowhere to go, yet getting hotter and expanding more, you get the Galaxy Note 7 phone.

So if they did replace the battery with a new one of proper size, it would not have as much capacity, so marketing would be pissed.

Re:Really?

[Ol Olsoc]

No?

It's part and parcel with all lithium ion batteries that the charge circuitry *must& limit charging or the thing explodes. That's how these chargers work.

No on your no. Limiting charge to 60 percent is exactly what you would expect on a phone that has a battery compartment that is too small for the battery in it. They were desperately trying to eliminate battery expansion and compression within it's compartment. Unfortunately, that didn't work.

At one point, I felt a little badly for Samsung, but after the facts came out, this was engineers bowing to marketing pressure, and marketing has seldom been able to break the laws of physics.

There is an engineering term called a "Blivet". Its defined as trying to put 10 pounds of shit into a 5 pound container. the Note 7 phone was a Blivet.

Re:Really?

[lxs]

Lithium charge controllers are simple and cheap analog electronic devices. Leaving this functionality to a processor would make it needlessly complicated and invites problems when the thing inevitably crashes.

Even with a processor based system you'd still need current sensing hardware, which would be nearly as expensive as a dedicated charge controller.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you and Slashdot have a fetish for removable batteries but is dishonest to pain this as a sealed battery problem. Don't imply that there' some vast conspiracy to keep better products away from the public. The consumers speak, and they want thinner phones with more battery life.

With dozens of manufactures and millions of unit shipped every week the market has spoken clearly. Replaceable batteries are a niche feature.

The problem of putting cells in sealed phones is solved, and has been for almost a decade. What killed the note 7 was rushed design. - Samsung said themselves they thought they could steal market share from apple if they beat the 7+ release.

Well, they fucked up. They shipped what's probably the worst bungle of a flagship smartphone in history and consumers were reminded why they might like the iterative, stable approach apple takes to their products.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

That "analog" charge controller IC has long included some digital circuits to allow reading status over SMBus. Compared to the size of power transistors, these digital circuits probably fit in the gaps, and so the cost of that digital monitoring circuit is the engineering design work, with *zero* per-unit cost.

Allowing that same SMBus port to write some parameters to non-volatile memory turns your "charger for 3 Li-ion cells in series" into a charger capable of handling several different chemistries (Li-ion, LiPo, etc) and several different arrangements (2 in series, 3 in series, 4 in series) so you do that too.

Since setting those parameters incorrectly will make the charger either non-functional or downright dangerous, the real WTF is that the security fuses weren't blown to prevent malware from changing them. Charging your 2-series cell system to the voltage intended for a 3-series system is gonna cause energetic failure.

Re:Really?

[Ol Olsoc]

I know you and Slashdot have a fetish for removable batteries but is dishonest to pain this as a sealed battery problem.

It has not one single solitary little bitty thing to do with a battery that is sealed in place, versus a removable battery. Where on earth did you ever in a million years get that idea that I was arguing that?

It has 100 percent, not a shadow of a doubt, irrefutable laws of physics, total to do with a battery compartment that is simply and 100 percent clearly - too small.

So unless the laws of physics make replaceable batteries somehow not expand when heated, not expand when charged, simply not expand - a replaceable battery will do exactly the same thing when placed in a compartment that is not capable of accomodating it's laws of physics bound expansion.

Don't imply that there' some vast conspiracy to keep better products away from the public. The consumers speak, and they want thinner phones with more battery life.

And they also want perpetual motion and to heat their entire house on 2 tea candles and a clay flower pot. You can't always get what you want.

You cant make "Want" alter the laws of physics. You can't just keep packing more power into smaller spaces and have no limits. You need to go back and learn just what chemistry is involved here. There are some real limits here. First of course is squeezing more power out of a battery. But as we do that, we can get to a point where a battery can be pretty dangerous. Li makes a nice powerful battery, but doesn't suffer fools gladly. Lithium isn't as nasty as Sodium or Potassium, but it's like Mr Bigglesworth - you don't want it to get angry with ya.

The electronics can be made less power hungry, there is some wiggle room there yet. But the amount of power needed to connect to a cell phone tower isn't changing all that much, and might actually increase as we end up with an overall noise floor increase with all of the wireless devices of all kinds in use.

Um, it is MY phone, not YOURS

[Anonymous Coward]

My phone is not broken. It charges fine, and does not catch fire. I paid for this phone, and it is mine. It is not yours. You are not legally permitted to destroy it remotely just because you want to.

However, if it does catch fire, you are responsible for any damages that occur.

That is the way our legal system works. Consumers are not required by law to participate in product safety recalls, and they do not give up any of their legal rights if they do not participate.

If you remotely destroy my phone, I will sue the everliving shit out of you. You have no right to do it.

Re:Um, it is MY phone, not YOURS

[Jzanu]

Yes, they are. This is something called a safety recall enforced by law. Read.

Re:Um, it is MY phone, not YOURS

[Diss Champ]

This is great and all so far as it goes, and IANAL, but now that you know you have a substantial risk of your phone catching fire, if/when it catches fire someone else is nearby and it injures them or their property they can probably sue you.

Re:Um, it is MY phone, not YOURS

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot

Re:Um, it is MY phone, not YOURS

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you stupid or something? There is absolutely no law in the US that compels consumers to surrender their property under the auspices of a safety recall. Of course, it is in their best interest to do so, but constitutionally speaking, they cannot be forced to surrender their property. The OP is absolutely correct on this point.

Re:Um, it is MY phone, not YOURS

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a fucking idiot

Screw them

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not giving my phone back. It works for me. If they disable charging I hope they get sued into the ground.
   

Re: Screw them

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like vaccination. Your terrible choices can get many others killed. At some point, someone - Samsung, the government, your parents - has to step in and FORCE the right choice.

I know this sounds dictatorial, but freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. You can't assert your freedom while trampling on everyone else's.

Your freedom to own a crap phone that is a major health hazard conflicts with the right to life of everyone else. The responsible thing to do is return it and get a refund. And possibly sue Samsung for the emotional distress they caused you (good luck with that).

Re: Screw them

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Samsung is the child for externalizing the real cost of their design decision. Anyone affected by this should sue Samsung to be made whole for their loss. If Samsung didn't want this then they should've refunded full purchase price on the phones returned. Samsung is betting that their customers will be willing or forced to bear the real cost for them and judging by many posts here they are likely correct.

Re:Screw them

[Anonymous Coward]

But you are old enough to buy it and to pay monthly usage fees.

Re:Screw them

[allcoolnameswheretak]

You want to keep on wearing a potentially exploding phone in your pants?

Great idea! This is how natural selection works.

Re: Screw them

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike vaccines, my phone works perfectly.

Re:Screw them

[Ol Olsoc]

You are a child, give your phone back to your mommy. You're not old enough or responsible enough now.

This is Slashdot, where somehow being a flaming asshole - how appropriate the term - makes a person a man of the highest character. I suspect - hope actually - that AC is just trolling, as it takes a special kind of stupid to actually want to hang on to a phone that has such a nasty design flaw.

Re:Screw them

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. It's not like the ones that didn't blow up will be worth a lot of money in a couple of years.

Re: Screw them

[Opportunist]

And just like with being not vaccinated, you'll cry bloody murder and blame everyone but yourself when the shit hits the fan, right?

Re: Screw them

[Anonymous Coward]

Until it doesn't.

They are not reimbursing costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung is NOT making purchasers whole.

In the US many people still buy phones as part of a contract and Samsung has not even offered to buy out the new contracts that were bought as part of the purchase. What Samsung has offered is only partial reimbursement of the costs incurred.

Re:They are not reimbursing costs

[Jzanu]

All they are liable for is the product, other elements are responsibility of carrier. And yes, you can transfer plans. Idiot.

Re:They are not reimbursing costs

[Anonymous Coward]

>In the US many people still buy phones as part of a contract

From who? AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile all stopped doing this in favor of separate BYOD contracts and essentially loans for phones.

Re: They are not reimbursing costs

[Jzanu]

Sure, but for consumer safety. Idiocy has no place the adult world.

Re:They are not reimbursing costs

[ranton]

In the US many people still buy phones as part of a contract and Samsung has not even offered to buy out the new contracts that were bought as part of the purchase. What Samsung has offered is only partial reimbursement of the costs incurred.

On top of this, many people trade in their old phones and were forced to either buy a new phone they didn't want or buy a refurbished version of their old phone at likely $100 more than they traded in the old one. That is what happened to my wife.

Re:They are not reimbursing costs

[Anonymous Coward]

>In the US many people still buy phones as part of a contract

From who? AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile all stopped doing this in favor of separate BYOD contracts and essentially loans for phones.

And what would you call a loan, if not a contract? You are signing a contract agreeing to pay $x every month until the balance of the loan is paid off.

Re:They are not reimbursing costs

[Overzeetop]

You can't link a single carrier in the US who is was not refunding the full price, plus tax, and alloing you to cancel your contract following the recall. ALL of them are offering full refunds on the phone.

Better yet - tell Samsung you bought if off of Craig's List and they'll refund you the full retail price plus $25 per accessory you bought with it, plus $$25 on top of that for your inconvenience. Then simply terminate your contract with the carrier, pay the ETF (usu ~$350) and pocket the extraI say pocket the extra because there were no subsidized Note 7s selling for more than $500, so you will come out ahead.

Re:They are not reimbursing costs

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't find a phone you want in 2016 then you may be a bit too picky. Hard to have real feels for such people.

Re:They are not reimbursing costs

[Anonymous Coward]

You traded your wife???

Re:They are not reimbursing costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Trump does it. I thought everybody did it. Trade in the old wife for a newer model.

Re: They are not reimbursing costs

[Anonymous Coward]

>Idiocy has no place the adult world.

If that is the case then why are there some many bleeping idiots driving?

Re:They are not reimbursing costs

[ranton]

If you can't find a phone you want in 2016 then you may be a bit too picky. Hard to have real feels for such people.

It isn't about finding a phone you want, its about finding a phone you are willing to pay $600-$800 for. If the Note 4 and the Note 5 were the same price, I would pick the Note 5. But it certainly isn't worth $200-$300 more than the Note 4, in my opinion at least. IMO the Note 7 wasn't worth the upgrade either, which is why only my wife upgraded and not me.

There aren't any flagship phones with a stylus and 5.7"+ screen, so right now there aren't any real competitors to the Note line for those who care about those specs.

Re:They are not reimbursing costs

[Aczlan]

I'll take an Android phone with a slide out keyboard please, my Droid4 is getting a little long in the tooth.

Aaron Z

Re: They are not reimbursing costs

[Anonymous Coward]

You can not tranfer your plan. You have to start a new contract and pay sales tax. Then wait to be reimbursed for months on the sales tax on the phone that you were not having any problems with, you were forced to turn in twice.

So, if you turn the phone off,

[pecosdave]

Then plug it in - will it charge? On some of my older HTC phones I would turn them off when I charged them when I had some place to be because it was significantly faster.

Then, sometime during all of this, install a non-standard ROM. I've used Cyanogen Mod and Fresh Evo in the past, I'm sure there's a non-Samsung ROM you could put on the thing. That way you have plenty of opportunity to have the thing explode on your own terms.

Re:So, if you turn the phone off,

[Harlequin80]

Normally a fully charged LIPO cell is 4.8v and a fully used lipo cell is at 3.3v. The charging circuit inside the phone will have somewhere a variable set to 4.8v as max cell voltage and that will be where it stops charging the battery. It should be pretty trivial to change that to 3.3v and hence the phone will no longer charge the battery.

You can't dumb charge lipos. If you keep shoving amps into them they will overcharge and go pop. So even if the phone is powered down when plugged into a power source the charging controller would have to be active.

Re:So, if you turn the phone off,

[Mascot]

My guess would be the answer is no. There seems to be a fair amount of software involved in charging these days. iDevices turn on fully the moment you plug them in, while several generations of my Android devices take a while before they turn on the display to show charging status from a powered down state. I'm guessing whatever they are doing to disable charging, goes into whatever piece of software is running while the device is charging.

But, as I said, that's just a guess. I'm sure someone in the comments has some first hand knowledge of what goes on in phones during charging these days.

Re:So, if you turn the phone off,

[Khyber]

"You can't dumb charge lipos"

You can dumb charge anything. Is it SAFE to do so? Not necessarily.

Re:So, if you turn the phone off,

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to "turn off" the radio chipset is to remove power completely.
Normally that's only an easy option for devices with a removable battery, but even if you desoldered it, that would sort of defeat the goal of charging the battery using the phone :P

But with any charge left, or while plugged in to power, the radio chipset in its lowest power state will still occasionally turn on and check in with the cell network for any queued emergency or admin out of band commands waiting for it, and upon seeing one it will fully wake and check in.

Generally speaking, the radio chipset will pull down its own software updates independent of the phones general CPU being on. In fact there is nothing the general CPU can do about this. Additionally, one of the things the radio chipset can do is completely halt the general CPU and gain access to the CPUs memory and most peripherals.

If they were to do things properly, the first step would be to have the radio chipset wake the CPU and update itself. Then the radio would wake the general CPU and tell it to update.
The second step would be a 'fail over' and simply halt the general CPU and never allow it to start running instructions again.
The final step would be another update to the radio chipset to effectively brick it while left in a mode to keep the general CPU halted.

I would assume in this situation the update to the OS will be to let the general CPU continue to function, just with charging disabled. That would let you still use the phone while plugged in, or on whatever charge is remaining in the battery, so you can make a backup or do a final sync of the device or whatnot.

I can't say if they will or not push a future update to brick the radio with the CPU halted.
So long as the charging functions are fully disabled, I would like to think the risk of battery explosion would be fully mitigated.
There's no real need to stop someone from using the phone while connected to power, so long as that power doesn't go to charging the battery.

They do have the ability to, fully within the radio chipset, tell what OS is running on the general CPU however.
If running Android with the final update to disable charging, there is no need for them to take further action.
But if you are not (ie are running alternate firmware) there is nothing to stop them from assuming the battery charging functions are still active and completely disable the general CPU "just to be safe"

It really just depends on how far they want to take things.
Alternately I'd imagine it would depend on their legal standing. If this update is enough to satisfy the courts that Samsung did everything to mitigate the risk and the responsibility of defeating those mitigations falls fully on you and not them, they would have no reason to disable the device fully. Of course if they are still legally responsible, I suspect they will.

I'm just guessing here, but I'd imagine if even one country would still hold Samsung legally responsible for damages even after you defeated all of their actions, I would expect them to push out a global update simply because it is easier and cheaper.
There is limited 'selection ability' on a per-carrier basis so far as different countries and carriers have different chipsets they can address separately, so that may very well come into play.
In other words, if the EU requires them to brick the phone or be held liable for damages, they will certainly do the work to disable the chipsets used in the EU.
But a different chipset in say the US likely would take additional effort for a different update to be made and pushed to do the same, and if they aren't required to do that in the US they probably wouldn't expend the time and effort on it.

Re:So, if you turn the phone off,

[Zarquon]

Do not try to charge a lipo above *4.2* volts.

Re:So, if you turn the phone off,

[Harlequin80]

Sorry yes 4.2 volts. Brain was tired.

Android is just another walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

So, all the openness of Android you still cannot prevent the phone from being remotely disabled by the vendor. How is it different from any other walled garden, except, you only have the wall and don't even have a well-tended garden?

Re: Android is just another walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

You can go into the settings and tell the Android os to allow you to install software from 'untrusted' sources. Duh.

Re: Android is just another walled garden

[BlytheBowman]

Some Android devices had their OS tampered with by the manufacturer plus their bootloader locked so the device can be forced to accept an update plus prevent you from using an alternate rom. I had to root my Amazon Fire twice, because after I rooted the first time, I failed to disable the autoupdating part. Then Amazon slipped a mickey on my device ("update") which locked it right back up, and I had to wait a couple months before Kingroot had an update which could disable this new lock. No other rooting program worked. This time, I made damn sure to protect Amazon from commiting this kind of computer crime again with my tablet. Yes, they commited a crime by tampering with my tablet with the forced update, and they caused damage to my setup and did thid without my consent (EULAs don't count. I never signed it, so the contract is void). Of course, they will never be procecuted for this or any other computer crime they will likely commit in the future. Big corporations are usualy immune when they do this to a peasant insted of the government.

I see what they're going to do

[Rik Sweeney]

They're going to make the phones self-destruct.

Seemingly unrelated

[Anonymous Coward]

my Kindle DX stopped connecting to Amazon Whispernet. I tried contacting support for both UK and US, got ping-ponged, very frustrating.

Then I decided to ignore the problem, stripped DRM, and starting using Kindle DX just as Ereader with no network.

Now, interesting bit: before, I had uptimes like 3-4 days tops. Now my kindle goes without charge for like month and a half, I am very happy with it all of a sudden.

Now, ask yourself: how much all these remote disabling abilities actually cost us? Phoning home and all that? I am curious to know - it probably still is chargeable traffic, so you are paying salaries of your censors actually. Funny, is not it?

Re:Seemingly unrelated

[bored]

Same basic thing with the touchpad/veer I have. The battery life probably doubled over the 3-4 months as online functionality was shutdown.

Re:Seemingly unrelated

[rikkards]

Imagine that, stop using peripherals that naturally consume power, your battery lasts longer.
ITS A CONSPIRACY!!

Re:Seemingly unrelated

[spire3661]

Dont get me started on how i have to keep my Kindle charged just so they can advertise to me. Its insane how much they use up the battery for ads.

Of course

[OneHundredAndTen]

It has other more explosive devices in the pipeline with which it will no doubt rekindle the public's burning desire to buy Samsung products.

Interesting they're shutting down devices and not

[maggard]

First off this no-charge strategy is not confirmed.

Second what Samsung has been doing til now was installing nag screens and limiting battery charging to sixty percent. I'd be surprised if the US is the first country where they roll out no-charging. All their other methods were first launched in smaller markets.

Thirdly it is interesting they're supposedly software shutting-down the handsets and not simply denying them service. It'd be trivial to place every Note 7 on the blacklist maintained by US carriers for stolen devices.

Of course denying service means the devices are unreachable, so this might be the step before that, to ensure they're not kept around as wifi devices or fancy alarm clocks. Blocking the battery means they're effectively defanged - no charge means no chance of fire.

In my part of the world I haven't seen a Note 7 in weeks. I expect when a clerk points out a Note 7 is keeping a known fire hazard next to their genitals, or in their purse-of-important-stuff, or holding it to their face is asking for trouble, or charging it in their bedroom while sleeping is really scary, and insurance will no longer cover it's damages, the sane ones figure it's time to trade-in.

Hmm... interesting.

[aussersterne]

Given the small numbers of fires so far and the fact that they already limited charging, this makes me think that they now believe the problem will get worse over time—i.e. it's not just that a few units are affected by the poor design choice with battery tolerances, when exposed to just the right conditions, but that EVERY unit has an elevated likelihood of going up in smoke over time, i.e. the ticking time bomb phenomenon.

"We've analyzed their attack sir, and there is a danger."

Otherwise, this would seem to be quite a drastic move.

Re:Hmm... interesting.

[Overzeetop]

Not really. A single major incident could cost them a million or more in liability. If there are only 100,000 (of the 5M manufactured) in the wild, and they continue to have problems at the original 1/200000 per month, that's 6 potential liability claims a year on a product with no revenue. They're offering a full refund, token refunds of accessories, and $25 in "we're sorry" cash. Aside from being a stubborn asshole, there's no real reason to keep them.

Re:civilized countries

[Jzanu]

Germany. SPD and CDU are both moderate and who frequently work together in Grand Coalition, and when not must ally with smaller parties to gain majority. The lately cited AfD is just a flash mob directly sponsored by Russia, and has only won minimal state elections not federal Bundestag elections. It isn't a real threat to German Democracy.

Re:civilized countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany. The country responsible for inciting more death and destruction than any other is your only example of a "civilized" country. What an inversion of sanity.

Re:civilized countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's hoping you find yourself on the wrong end of a Muslim's cultural peni... er enrichment!

Re:civilized countries

[Jzanu]

Have experience with the extreme right and having a new government constructed afterwards in particular to avoid repeating that error gives Germany strength.

Re:civilized countries

[Jzanu]

It sounds like you could use some time visiting a madrasa, but I doubt you are the type to accept education or acknowledge its utility.

Re: Tell that to the gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunting explains basic rifles.

Suggesting hunting is a reason for all the other stuff is to assume a pretty significant idocy on the behalf of the asker.

Already modified?

[bool2]

Given the safety implications, they would want to minimise the chance of anyone disabling updates so I wouldn't be surprised if they have already modified the software and this is notice that 15th December (or 6 days of runtime) is already baked in as a date of death.

At least, they should have done that.

Re:civilized countries

[msauve]

In civilized countries you are not allowed items that endanger the public with no other function.

Maybe ypu could post a list of these civilized countries

Germany

So, you're claiming Germany doesn't let people own rocks or pointy sticks?

Re:Tell that to the gun nuts

[OhPlz]

Freedom is a pretty good reason. If guns scare you, move to someplace like Chicago that makes it nearly impossible to posses one legally. It's a safe haven in a country of chaos, or so you're logic would have us think.

Re:Tell that to the gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Love how any thread can be turned into an anti-2A rant on /. Sort of like Rule 34, except less cool and more annoying.

Re:civilized countries

[ElectricHellKnight]

Have experience with the extreme right and having a new government constructed afterwards in particular to avoid repeating that error gives Germany strength.

If you think the Nazis are an example of the "extreme right" then your arrogance and misunderstanding knows no bounds. "Nazi" meant "National Socialist German Workers Party". Remind me again, which political party is it that offers a safe haven to socialism? I certainly don't think it's the big-business first capitalist Republican one. I believe it was your original candidate, Mr. Bernie Sanders, that publicly stated he was a socialist.

From Wikipedia: The party emerged from the German nationalist, racist and populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against the communist uprisings in post-World War I Germany.[7] The party was created as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[8] Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities, and in the 1930s the party's focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.[9]

I am always still managing to be shocked at what kind of back-asswards world you lefties live in. I'm sure you'll find some way to try to twist this around and claim that the Nazis were really Republicans.

Why not LIMIT charging to x% max or y% at a time?

[DutchUncle]

Looking for a way to satisfy the balance of safety vs. ownership. Would it be enough to:
- limit charging to some maximum percentage (maybe 80%)
- limit the charging rate (no fast charging)
- limit the amount of time per charge (with some enforced delay between charging periods)

Re:civilized countries

[mrchaotica]

The problem is not with defining Nazis as "left" or "right," but by the characterization of politics along a single left-right axis itself. Sanders' socialism is nothing at all like Nazism.

Re: civilized countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you refuse to pay your taxes. Then Sanders would not hesitate to support the IRS sending in their enforcement thugs.

Also, Sanders was a strong supporter of the Sandanista regime. A party that hoped and dreamed of achieving as much control over their people as Castro in Cuba.

Re: civilized countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they are still second in the mass murder category behind Stalin.

Best phone I have owned....finally gave it up...

[Anonymous Coward]

Best phone I have owned....finally gave it up...

Laser cure for a Typhoid Mary situation.

[Anonymous Coward]

To understand the gravity of this situation, the smartphone total recall affected Samsung's finances so much that they had to emergency sell their laser printer manufacturing branch to H-P. Not some kind of a virtual property, like a few million lines of program codes, but factory halls with 4 chimneys, robots and thousands of workforce. (Samsung laser printers are really very good, compact but reliable and with quite acceptable consumable costs.)

I think Samsung could argue in court that a person stubbornly keeping an explosion-leaning GN7 phone on his / her body and walking around the city is sufficiently similar to Typhoid Mary, so that law enforcement could be involved to forcibly exchange the phone for a full refund.

Re:civilized countries

[painandgreed]

Have experience with the extreme right and having a new government constructed afterwards in particular to avoid repeating that error gives Germany strength.

If you think the Nazis are an example of the "extreme right" then your arrogance and misunderstanding knows no bounds. "Nazi" meant "National Socialist German Workers Party". Remind me again, which political party is it that offers a safe haven to socialism? I certainly don't think it's the big-business first capitalist Republican one. I believe it was your original candidate, Mr. Bernie Sanders, that publicly stated he was a socialist.

Ok, look. Pandering the common man is was easy way to get their backing. There were "socialist" factions within the Nazis who wanted to make sure the common German worker was taken care of. These pretty much all died,, literally, with Rohm in the Night of Long Knives. From then on, they were pretty much a politically extreme right which is to say authoritarian rule, as opposed to the egalitarianism of political left. This is different from the political left or right that is associated with liberal, wanting to make changes, or conservative, wanting to maintain the status quo which are terms that have also formed different meaning than their original. That generally has nothing to do with financially left or right wing which is where the 'socialist" comes in with defining differences between capitalist and communist. Even then, in both cases, things are being defined in dualistic definitions that usually break down when talking about anything in more than a cursory manner as there are many different, often conflicting, meanings even under the same label.

Verizon says Nope! We won't do it.

[caferace]

ref: http://www.theverge.com/circui...

"In October, Samsung announced a voluntary recall of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 when it was discovered that all available devices could overheat and pose a safety risk to customers. Since that time, a vast majority of Verizon customers who purchased the Note 7 have replaced their phones with other models.

        Today, Samsung announced an update to the Galaxy Note 7 that would stop the smartphone from charging, rendering it useless unless attached to a power charger. Verizon will not be taking part in this update because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note 7 users that do not have another device to switch to. We will not push a software upgrade that will eliminate the ability for the Note 7 to work as a mobile device in the heart of the holiday travel season. We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation.

        Verizon and Samsung have communicated the need for customers with a Note 7 to immediately stop using their devices and return or exchange it where they purchased it. Verizon customers with the Note 7 have several options, including an additional $100 from Samsung when purchasing one of their other devices.
"

Secondary market

[freeschwag]

When the drama dies down, there will be 285000 money grubbers trying to get a small fortune for thier "super rare" discontinued phone. Fan boyz will pay anything for exclusivity. You can always Cyanogenmod it so OTA updates dont work.

Re:civilized countries

[lactose99]

You realize the Nazis were neither socialist or for the workers right? They were absolute fascists. Having socialist in their name doesn't make them so.

Currently the party that wants to tell me who I can marry or what bathroom I'm required to use are the Republicans.

Re:Tell that to the gun nuts

[CaptainDork]

Guns have been used as hammers by way of grabbing the barrel for the purpose of driving nails or smashing windows.

Also, some guns are in mint condition for purposes of display by collectors.

Then, there's the obvious non-public endangerment of plinking, competition, and hunting.

Dec 19 is drop dead date ...

[CaptainDork]

... according to Samsung.