Rebellion against the Law (except this website pls no ban pls)

Honestly, I get where you're coming from this whole situation sucks. But just to respond to a few of your points:

1. Samsung does know about this kind of petition. There have been tons of similar ones in the past, and big companies monitor stuff like this all the time. So it’s not like they’re in the dark.

2 & 3. Blaming it on EU laws is a convenient excuse, but let’s be real a lot of this comes down to money and control. Locking bootloaders means people are more likely to stick with their stock software, which helps their ecosystem, reduces warranty risks, and keeps users from extending the life of their phones through ROMs. It’s more about business than safety.

1. Saying “almost nobody signed it” doesn’t really make sense if it’s brand new and already has 139 verified signatures. That’s actually pretty decent for a niche issue, and things like this take time to grow. If no one cared, no one would have signed at all.

And just to be clear I’m not being naive. I’m frustrated too. I’ve posted about this in multiple threads because I care about this issue. Locking people out of their own devices is not okay. If I came off too strong before, that wasn’t my intention — just really tired of seeing this happen over and over.

olijo said:

Honestly, I get where you're coming from this whole situation sucks. But just to respond to a few of your points:

1. Samsung does know about this kind of petition. There have been tons of similar ones in the past, and big companies monitor stuff like this all the time. So it’s not like they’re in the dark.

2 & 3. Blaming it on EU laws is a convenient excuse, but let’s be real a lot of this comes down to money and control. Locking bootloaders means people are more likely to stick with their stock software, which helps their ecosystem, reduces warranty risks, and keeps users from extending the life of their phones through ROMs. It’s more about business than safety.

1. Saying “almost nobody signed it” doesn’t really make sense if it’s brand new and already has 139 verified signatures. That’s actually pretty decent for a niche issue, and things like this take time to grow. If no one cared, no one would have signed at all.

And just to be clear I’m not being naive. I’m frustrated too. I’ve posted about this in multiple threads because I care about this issue. Locking people out of their own devices is not okay. If I came off too strong before, that wasn’t my intention — just really tired of seeing this happen over and over.

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

Then I missed all of the old ones I guess, I only remember the fsf petition. That was missing the unlock entirely, they asked for sources of everything but the unlock? Nowhere to be found, like you can do pmos for anything but you can't unlock.

Aside, I doubt a petition made them do this change, I mean could be but really? Aren't we exaggerating? But who knows maybe I'm the one naive here, lmao. But if you think about it why a brand that allows you to unlock would block that ability just for a petition? That petition wasn't for their devices, I guess just for the carrier ones but that's not a Samsung problem, they only follow what those carriers asked them for, it's a problem of the carrier and not of Samsung.

But.....

Azaze666 said:

But.....

The real reason behind Samsung's One UI 8 bootloader unlock ban is an EU law

The software modding community wasn't too happy when it emerged last week that Samsung has banned bootloader unlock with One UI 8. Samsung has generally been tolerant of these mods so this move was unexpected for the community. The company didn't explain why this was done but it appears that an...

www.sammobile.com

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

Sammobile said:

A report points out that this likely due to the European Union law 2014/53/EU which imposes new cybersecurity requirements on device manufacturers like Samsung. They must ensure that the devices they sell in Europe block the installation of unauthorized software and only run signed and approved ROMs.

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

Absolutely despicable.

The elites are taking freedom and ownership away and excusing it with "security" and "protection"? How typical. It is the usual fearmongering to get you to accept it. They did the same thing with DMCA. It's a muzzle, not a shield.

The elites arbitrarily decide stuff without you or me having a say. To their credit, they did good things once in a while, such as enforcing USB and putting an end to proprietary vendor charging connectors (remember Sony Ericsson's horrible connector?), but banning bootloader unlocking is evil. And as usual, people will only notice once it's too late.

And whenever they elites do something good, it sometimes is far too late. Late is better than never, but did everyone really have to suffer from planned obsolescence batteries for over a decade? This nonsense should have been stopped in its tracks in 2007, not 2027.

Not only should unlockable bootloaders be mandatory, but bootloaders unlocked by default. Locked bootloaders have caused way more pain than they're worth. Many people learn about bootloaders by the time it is already too late and too much of their data is locked in.

Unlocked bootloaders are not just for custom operating systems but also for basic control over user data. Besides, modifying operating systems should be encouraged, not banished. It is useful for educational purposes and can lead to innovations. Creative people would come up with ideas that help other people. All of this is thwarted so powerful people can enforce their idea of how we get to use our devices.

When the legal system picks the side of the big corporations rather than holding them accountable, everyone is screwed.

[I hereby release this text into the public domain under CC0 1.0, excluding quotes.]

Mass surveillance​

"Cybersecurity requirements" is the usual fearmongering to scare people into accepting violations of their freedom. The elites want to implement their wet dream of one-way mass surveillance while pretending to care oh-so-much about privacy.

Louis Rossmann video: GDPR meant nothing: chat control ends privacy for the EU (Odysee mirror)

If you can't choose your operating system, the elites can put whichever spyware they dream of in your operating system and you have no recourse.

Planned obsolescence​

Forced bootloaders are also planned obsolescence because they prevent third-party operating systems such as Lineage OS from being installed.

Third-party operating systems can provide extended support for older devices long after support was dropped by the smartphone company. Obviously, smartphone companies would rather have you buy new phones. For the same reason, they prevent you from replacing your battery while hypocritically pretending to care about the environment.

[I hereby release this post into public domain, CC0 1.0.]