Interesting thoughts about the "rootkit" story. Let's share ours.

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

First read this:
http://forum.androidcentral.com/t-mobile-g2/38879-g2-thwarting-attempts-mod.html

Then read this:
http://www.androidcentral.com/t-mobile-g2-root-rootkit-hacking

Now have a look at these: (trust me, it will get clearer in a bit lol)
Dan Meredith | NewAmerica.net
Sascha Meinrath | NewAmerica.net
Josh King | NewAmerica.net
James Losey | NewAmerica.net
Those are the authors of the original Rootkit story. While you're there, have a look at their site so you see what it is they do, and how they think.

Then look who the chairman of the board is:
Board of Directors | NewAmerica.net

Whoa. Freaky.

<begin conspiracy theory>
I know that with the background those writers have, theres no way they believe there's a rootkit, stealing our freedom. At least one of them had to realize they were reaching when they wrote it.
(for those wondering, it looks like the issue is a separate partition that backs up the last known good version of the system, in case there's ever issues with an update. Instead of bricking or bootlooping, the phone restores itself if the system is tampered with)

Why would this particular group want to start a fire, and put HTC and T-Mobile in the oven?
Is the fact that Eric Schmidt chairs the board a factor at all?

Google has been getting a ton of grief about openness and the way carriers and manufacturers are stepping all over Android. This piece really makes HTC and T-Mobile look bad for tampering with the openness of Android. It even stretches the truth to do it.

Why?

I've asked for a statement from the authors. Of course, got no replies. I'm about to sit down and email Eric Schmidt and ask his opinion about what New America Foundation has to say about the G2, and what he thinks about the G2's protection scheme. He won't answer either, I'm sure. Don't really blame him, he's a busy man. But I have to try.

Since the parties involved aren't likely to respond, even though they surely know the hornets nest they stirred up amongst the Android community, we're going to guess their motives. I don't think they were just fishing for hits. There's a lot of easier ways to do that. What do YOU think this whole mess is about? Would love to hear your thoughts.
</conspiracy theory>

 

[dhero]

Google wants open devices but none of the carriers want them entirely open, and their suppliers will follow suit. To fight, Google is using the weakest and most likely to fold players of the 4 big carriers (T-Mobile) and of the 5 big handset makers (HTC). If Google is successful with T-Mobile and HTC, public pressure will be to much for the rest and the dominoes will fall. But if I were a betting man, the will of the carriers - mostly due to the billions they invested in spectrum rights - will prevail for at least the short term (next 3 years).

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Google doesn't want to be Apple, so they will use tactics like this to get the carriers to get in line with their beliefs. I'm not saying I totally agree or disagree with what they may or may not be trying to do, but I do believe that one day the openness of Android will be it's downfall (just look at what Verizon is doing to Android). If this is what it takes for Google to try to keep the essence of being open going, then so be it, because I don't want them to turn into Apple and close the system.

 

[cr3amy]

I think you're all reading too much into this "issue". I'm going to quickly brainstorm my thoughts about it, and look at it from a business perspective (I have a degree in Business Finance, so this is how my thinking leans me)

Google wants the hackers happy, because they are the most enthusiastic, they're usually smart, and they're who their friends ask for advice on tech gadgets. However, the number of hackers in the world and the number of people they affect is far too small for big decisions to be based on this group. Thus, I believe that neither Motorola, nor HTC, nor T-Mobile, nor anyone else gives too much of a crap about this group. And besides, they know that this group will find ways around any defense they put up.

It simply makes no business sense for them to put resources into blocking a bootloader. They don't care.

I believe that all of these issues are arising specifically BECAUSE of that. HTC put this into the G2 to protect the average Joe who doesn't want to have to deal with bricked handsets. But because they don't care enough, they don't put in the necessary roads around these safeguards.

Reason why I think this? Tech nerds can tell laypeople wants new and hot. But laypeople trust other laypeople more. When my technologically-inept friends have an issue with a phone, they tell other technologically-inept people "Oh, I got the G2 but something happened and it doesn't work," and that reduces HTC's trustworthiness. So they put in a safeguard. And without thinking about the core group of enthusiasts, left it without an obvious backdoor... but they also KNOW that we'll get in, so they're not too concerned.


My 2 cents on this...

 

[NoSpin]

I'm certainly not one for conspiracy theories, but this is quite intriguing. There is no doubt that Google is upset with the tampering of Android by carriers. The only ones they want messing with the integrity of their baby is themselves, but unless they get back into the phone business they're going to have to deal with things like this.

Google doesn't want Android to turn into iOS, and while that's good for tech-savy members of the community, it is not in the manufacturers or carriers best interests. While I think Google should probably sit down with them and try to meet half way, it is important to note that Android would be nowhere without them, and would fall should they choose that it isn't worth their trouble. Google needs to be sure it doesn't tick them off.

Very interesting, keep the AC team on it!

 

[jocelyn]

in a perfect world, we should be able to purchase the device of our choosing and then sign a contract for service with a carrier capable of supporting the device, or be able to purchase the radio-type version of the device (four versions of the same device the only difference being the network radio for what carrier). it would be awesome if they could all agree and use the same type of technology so we really have an open choice.

the devices are *ours*. we should have the option of accepting/using carrier modifications, not be forced into it. and choose the carrier based on their services that suit ourselves as individuals.

makers of OSs should have their freedom to show us what they're really capable of, and then work with the carriers to make a version that suits the carrier- we should have a choice of what we want to use.

same goes for the device makers.. just imagine what they could come up with if they didn't have to work specifically with the carriers...

and then the carriers could focus on their *service* because that is what they are.. a service provider..

 

[dhero]

in a perfect world, we should be able to purchase the device of our choosing and then sign a contract for service with a carrier capable of supporting the device, or be able to purchase the radio-type version of the device (four versions of the same device the only difference being the network radio for what carrier). it would be awesome if they could all agree and use the same type of technology so we really have an open choice.

the devices are *ours*. we should have the option of accepting/using carrier modifications, not be forced into it. and choose the carrier based on their services that suit ourselves as individuals.

makers of OSs should have their freedom to show us what they're really capable of, and then work with the carriers to make a version that suits the carrier- we should have a choice of what we want to use.

same goes for the device makers.. just imagine what they could come up with if they didn't have to work specifically with the carriers...

and then the carriers could focus on their *service* because that is what they are.. a service provider..

It's a nice sentiment. The problem is, of all consumer service providers no one pays more to play, up front for spectrum use rights, than the cellular carriers. And in addition, no network is more costly to build out. So in all of that, how is the investment made upfront by the carrier justified, or otherwise protected, wrt their ability to repay their debt?

 

[Troggie]

I think you're all reading too much into this "issue". I'm going to quickly brainstorm my thoughts about it, and look at it from a business perspective (I have a degree in Business Finance, so this is how my thinking leans me)

Google wants the hackers happy, because they are the most enthusiastic, they're usually smart, and they're who their friends ask for advice on tech gadgets. However, the number of hackers in the world and the number of people they affect is far too small for big decisions to be based on this group. Thus, I believe that neither Motorola, nor HTC, nor T-Mobile, nor anyone else gives too much of a crap about this group. And besides, they know that this group will find ways around any defense they put up.

It simply makes no business sense for them to put resources into blocking a bootloader. They don't care.

I believe that all of these issues are arising specifically BECAUSE of that. HTC put this into the G2 to protect the average Joe who doesn't want to have to deal with bricked handsets. But because they don't care enough, they don't put in the necessary roads around these safeguards.

Reason why I think this? Tech nerds can tell laypeople wants new and hot. But laypeople trust other laypeople more. When my technologically-inept friends have an issue with a phone, they tell other technologically-inept people "Oh, I got the G2 but something happened and it doesn't work," and that reduces HTC's trustworthiness. So they put in a safeguard. And without thinking about the core group of enthusiasts, left it without an obvious backdoor... but they also KNOW that we'll get in, so they're not too concerned.


My 2 cents on this...

My sentiments exactly. Sure, this sucks for those that want to root their phones, but the manufacturers & carriers need to look out for the majority (layperson) customers. And cr3amy's right, it's only a matter of time before someone figures out a way around it. Who knows, after all is said and done, possibly having a backup hacked ROM could be a good thing.

 

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

I think you're all reading too much into this "issue". I'm going to quickly brainstorm my thoughts about it, and look at it from a business perspective (I have a degree in Business Finance, so this is how my thinking leans me)

Google wants the hackers happy, because they are the most enthusiastic, they're usually smart, and they're who their friends ask for advice on tech gadgets. However, the number of hackers in the world and the number of people they affect is far too small for big decisions to be based on this group. Thus, I believe that neither Motorola, nor HTC, nor T-Mobile, nor anyone else gives too much of a crap about this group. And besides, they know that this group will find ways around any defense they put up.

It simply makes no business sense for them to put resources into blocking a bootloader. They don't care.

I believe that all of these issues are arising specifically BECAUSE of that. HTC put this into the G2 to protect the average Joe who doesn't want to have to deal with bricked handsets. But because they don't care enough, they don't put in the necessary roads around these safeguards.

Reason why I think this? Tech nerds can tell laypeople wants new and hot. But laypeople trust other laypeople more. When my technologically-inept friends have an issue with a phone, they tell other technologically-inept people "Oh, I got the G2 but something happened and it doesn't work," and that reduces HTC's trustworthiness. So they put in a safeguard. And without thinking about the core group of enthusiasts, left it without an obvious backdoor... but they also KNOW that we'll get in, so they're not too concerned.


My 2 cents on this...

I don't think any effort was made to thwart the user from modifying the phone, that was just a by-product. The fail safe that HTC manufactured into the G2 is a good thing IMO, I just wish they had worked to make it easily toggled off.

My whole issue is the way it was purposely blown out of proportion, and more importantly, WHY is was blown out of proportion. I doubt Mr. Schmidt called a meeting of the board and demanded someone write a hit piece against HTC or T-Mo, and it's pretty likely that he doesn't even know it was done. But with nobody taking time to confirm or deny, that allows us to get to work speculating