Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AT&T employees were bribed to install phone unlocking malware on company network

geekwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 157 posts

Re: AT&T employees were bribed to install phone unlocking malware on company network

#81

Post by caymanjim »

codinger wrote: post #66
jdblair wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A contract was violated when these phones were unlocked. In return for a locked phone the buyer received a subsidy from AT&T on the cost of the hardware. I don't want people to violate contracts with me, why should I recognize someone as a hero just because I don't like the contract? To be absolutely clear, I don't like locked phones, either, so I always buy non-carrier-locked devices and it means I pay the full, uns…

What contract? Most of these contracts have terms for canceling early. Like a fee to cover the remaining cost of the phone. After that point, it's their phone and I don't see a problem with someone using their property on another network.

When your contract is up they will unlock the phone for you.

Re: AT&T employees were bribed to install phone unlocking malware on company network

#82

Post by noodlesUK »

When a phone is “locked”, what does that entail? Is there a list of IMEIs somewhere that carriers check against when phones connect to their network, or is it something on the handset itself? If it’s software on the phone, surely it’s possible to hack it on the phone itself?

Re: AT&T employees were bribed to install phone unlocking malware on company network

#83

Post by jandrese »

jdblair wrote: post #27
jzunit wrote: post #8

His methods were illegal but can we please recognize this guy for being an ABSOLUTE HERO for unlocking all those phones and giving the people what they wanted.

A contract was violated when these phones were unlocked. In return for a locked phone the buyer received a subsidy from AT&T on the cost of the hardware. I don't want people to violate contracts with me, why should I recognize someone as a hero just because I don't like the contract? To be absolutely clear, I don't like locked phones, either, so I always buy non-carrier-locked devices and it means I pay the full, uns…

Unlocking the phone doesn't break the contract though. AT&T is still going to charge you even if you stuff a different SIM in the phone. If you cancel your service then they'll tack on the ETF that covers the cost of the device. They wouldn't be losing money unless the guy was unlocking unactivated phones, which is an interesting legal area because technically he may never have entered into a contract with AT&T in the first place.

Re: AT&T employees were bribed to install phone unlocking malware on company network

#84

Post by caymanjim »

psychometry wrote: post #57
chiefalchemist wrote: post #54

Looks like they completely buried the lead. That is, US carriers use proprietary hardware/software devices to establish and maintain a profitable strangle-hold on the consumer. No doubt the law the broken. There's no justification for that. However, the lead is the lead is the lead, and it's burried.

It's "lede"...

Stop trying to force this abomination on people. It's never been "lede" except with people who like to feel like they're cool. It's a neologism that needs to be quashed.

Re: AT&T employees were bribed to install phone unlocking malware on company network

#85

Post by fjp »

hughes wrote: post #65
chiefalchemist wrote: post #54

Looks like they completely buried the lead. That is, US carriers use proprietary hardware/software devices to establish and maintain a profitable strangle-hold on the consumer. No doubt the law the broken. There's no justification for that. However, the lead is the lead is the lead, and it's burried.

Is it really a stranglehold if it's a condition of a contract that consumers agree to in exchange for subsidized hardware? Personally I would never buy a carrier-locked phone, but I have the resources available to make that choice. Though the difference is maybe not huge, how many people do you think are online directly because of a carrier subsidy?

Not necessarily arguing either point here, but phones are rarely subsidized anymore. You simply pay full price, at 0% APR over 12-24 months.

Re: AT&T employees were bribed to install phone unlocking malware on company network

#86

Post by some_random »

deogeo wrote: post #14

1.) How is unlocking a phone "malware"? Isn't the lock malware, and the unlocking serves the owner of the device? Calling it malware reeks of regurgitating AT&T propaganda. 2.) How did this "deprive AT&T of the stream of payments it was owned under the customers’ service contracts and installment plans."? A phone getting unlocked doesn't void a contract, so those customers are still on the hook.

From the article

>Fahd allegedly recruited AT&T “insiders” to install malware programs that gathered confidential information and submitted unlock requests using employee credentials via a remote server.

Sounds like the malware was stealing creds to be used to unlock the phones.

Re: AT&T employees were bribed to install phone unlocking malware on company network

#87

Post by richardwhiuk »

admax88q wrote: post #72
jdblair wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A contract was violated when these phones were unlocked. In return for a locked phone the buyer received a subsidy from AT&T on the cost of the hardware. I don't want people to violate contracts with me, why should I recognize someone as a hero just because I don't like the contract? To be absolutely clear, I don't like locked phones, either, so I always buy non-carrier-locked devices and it means I pay the full, uns…

> A contract was violated when these phones were unlocked. That doesn't make it wrong. Fun fact, contracts are violated all the time, and not just between individuals and huge telecom companies, but also between large companies. If you have an issue with it you sue for breach of contract. Violating a contract isn't a crime for a reason.

Just because something isn't a crime, doesn't make it beneficial to society, or morally good.

Re: AT&T employees were bribed to install phone unlocking malware on company network

#88

Post by mcny »

caymanjim wrote: post #81
codinger wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What contract? Most of these contracts have terms for canceling early. Like a fee to cover the remaining cost of the phone. After that point, it's their phone and I don't see a problem with someone using their property on another network.

When your contract is up they will unlock the phone for you.

> When your contract is up they will unlock the phone for you.

Not necessarily automatically.

Maybe you are referring to the FCC ruling on Verizon's request?

(I have not been following this too closely but here is what I've read)

My understanding is Verizon will (in the future) fight this ruling as well.

> "After the expiration of the 60-day period, Verizon must automatically unlock the handsets at issue here regardless of whether: (1) the customer asks for the handset to be unlocked, or (2) the handset is fully paid off. Thus, at the end of the initial 60 days, the unlocking rule will operate just as it does now, and Verizon’s customers will be able to use their unlocked handsets on other technologically compatible networks. The only exception to the rule will be that Verizon will not have to automatically unlock handsets that it determines within the 60-day period to have been purchased through fraud."

https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/06/25/fcc-says-verizon-ca...

https://www.fcc.gov/document/order-granting-verizon-partial-...

Remember, Verizon will LOCK phones that you paid for in full "to protect you".

Re: AT&T employees were bribed to install phone unlocking malware on company network

#89

Post by _red »

jandrese wrote: post #83
jdblair wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A contract was violated when these phones were unlocked. In return for a locked phone the buyer received a subsidy from AT&T on the cost of the hardware. I don't want people to violate contracts with me, why should I recognize someone as a hero just because I don't like the contract? To be absolutely clear, I don't like locked phones, either, so I always buy non-carrier-locked devices and it means I pay the full, uns…

Unlocking the phone doesn't break the contract though. AT&T is still going to charge you even if you stuff a different SIM in the phone. If you cancel your service then they'll tack on the ETF that covers the cost of the device. They wouldn't be losing money unless the guy was unlocking unactivated phones, which is an interesting legal area because technically he may never have entered into a contract with AT&T in th…

1. sign up for new phone at heavily subsidized rate in exchange for 3 yr service

2. after month 1 cancel service / credit card

3. sell unlocked phone on ebay

Re: AT&T employees were bribed to install phone unlocking malware on company network

#90

Post by richardwhiuk »

fjp wrote: post #85
hughes wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really a stranglehold if it's a condition of a contract that consumers agree to in exchange for subsidized hardware? Personally I would never buy a carrier-locked phone, but I have the resources available to make that choice. Though the difference is maybe not huge, how many people do you think are online directly because of a carrier subsidy?

Not necessarily arguing either point here, but phones are rarely subsidized anymore. You simply pay full price, at 0% APR over 12-24 months.

That's essentially a free loan.
Post reply on HN