Realistically, what would happen if I decide to keep this?

[felloffthetruck]

It's just a matter of time before you'll will be holding the new Samsung Note 7 Brick/Paperweight.

 

[LeoRex]

I thought it said there were 22 cases since the recall. Didn't actually specify that they were replacement units, right?

23... the CPSC doesn't get into much detail on the specifics. But had all the other incidents other than the SW flight been on the original, pre-recall Note 7s, things would most likely be different. Safe to say that most all of those were replacements, based on Samsung canceling the Note 7.

 

[Jaycemiskel]

23... the CPSC doesn't get into much detail on the specifics. But had all the other incidents other than the SW flight been on the original, pre-recall Note 7s, things would most likely be different. Safe to say that most all of those were replacements, based on Samsung canceling the Note 7.

Maybe they were all replacement units. Still a very small number. Something that there haven't been any since the cancelation and the problem can't be replicated. I will say, I'm not worried about my phone burning up any more than I am with any other phone. I'll have to return it because of no support, but I would have no problem keeping it if given the choice.

 

[LeoRex]

Maybe they were all replacement units. Still a very small number. Something that there haven't been any since the cancelation and the problem can't be replicated. I will say, I'm not worried about my phone burning up any more than I am with any other phone. I'll have to return it because of no support, but I would have no problem keeping it if given the choice.

Well, once the story hit, and the CPSC and Samsung issued the stop order, I assume that a substantial percentage of Note 7 owners powered theirs down.

 

[TomOfTx]

South Korea has a constitution, a three branch government and is a democratic republic. Aside from fixing that error, I'll just advise you to move all the political nonsense to the politics section.

Thanks!

This is not about politics. It is about the 4th Amendment protection citizens of the USA enjoy which would prevent a private company like Samsung from unlawfully seizing or disabling private property without any judicial review. This is why I say it is ridiculous to think Samsung or any carrier here could legally disable someones private property such as the Note 7 phone. I own my Note 7 and the recall does not make it illegal to possess the device. Sure, it is banned from bringing on an airplane and such, but firearms are banned too. It does not prevent me from legally possessing the Note 7 or a firearm at this time.

My reference to South Korea not having any constitutional rights was a typo. I meant to say North Korea. Could apply to any country with no constitutional rights against unlawful search or seizure of private property.

 

[comestim]

You might own the device but you do not own the software. If you read any software agreement you are just renting it so in essence they can do anything they pretty much do anything they want to the software that runs the device.

 

[LeoRex]

This is why I say it is ridiculous to think Samsung or any carrier here could legally disable someones private property such as the Note 7 phone. I own my Note 7 and the recall does not make it illegal to possess the device.

Oh, you can keep the device.. but it doesn't mean it has to work. Your carrier can blacklist the phone and refuse to allow it to function on their network, and Samsung could push an update that cripples it. Now, I have a feeling that, if that were to happen, and you walked into a lawyer's office to complain... he'd simply point to this page and say that you are out of luck.

 

[Aquila]

This is not about politics. It is about the 4th Amendment protection citizens of the USA enjoy which would prevent a private company like Samsung from unlawfully seizing or disabling private property without any judicial review. This is why I say it is ridiculous to think Samsung or any carrier here could legally disable someones private property such as the Note 7 phone. I own my Note 7 and the recall does not make it illegal to possess the device. Sure, it is banned from bringing on an airplane and such, but firearms are banned too. It does not prevent me from legally possessing the Note 7 or a firearm at this time.

My reference to South Korea not having any constitutional rights was a typo. I meant to say North Korea. Could apply to any country with no constitutional rights against unlawful search or seizure of private property.

There is no Constitutional application to companies terminating licensed use of their own software. The 4th prevents the government from doing it without warrant, etc.

 

[Aquila]

You guys all realize that Samsung OEMs the software running on their devices and can modify it at their leisure and terminate the license for any individual phone or SKU etc at will and can block access to all its licensed products and services at will? They own it, you paid for the device with terms and conditions.

 

[Cary Quinn]

This is not about politics. It is about the 4th Amendment protection citizens of the USA enjoy which would prevent a private company like Samsung from unlawfully seizing or disabling private property without any judicial review. This is why I say it is ridiculous to think Samsung or any carrier here could legally disable someones private property such as the Note 7 phone. I own my Note 7 and the recall does not make it illegal to possess the device. Sure, it is banned from bringing on an airplane and such, but firearms are banned too. It does not prevent me from legally possessing the Note 7 or a firearm at this time.

My reference to South Korea not having any constitutional rights was a typo. I meant to say North Korea. Could apply to any country with no constitutional rights against unlawful search or seizure of private property.

IANAL but imho the 4th Amendment applies to unlawful Government search and seizure, not to corporate products and services. I can bring up past cases where it was perfectly lawful for a company to change or disable a product to protect their business interests, customer base, or as directed by a regulatory agency. Owning a Note 7 and using the Note 7 are two separate points.

I'm not saying that Samsung will brick the phones, I think they will exersize every possible reasonable avenue to get the phones replaced and off the market before they go to that extreme. And I think people who speculate right off the mark that they will are also going to an unnecessary extreme. But I would be remiss in not pointing out that the technology and capability are there for such a "nuclear" option.

 

[vasic]

What legal basis would Samsung or any carrier use to remotely disable a phone that they do not own...

There are several legal avenues, and none go against the argument you gave (4th amendment to the US constitution). The action could be done either by Samsung (pushing some update), or if unsuccessful, by carriers (rejecting the phones from connecting). You would still have a fully functional phone, it simply wouldn't be able to connect to any mobile network, regardless of which SIM card you insert. Possibly, you could connect via WiFi for VoIP apps (Skype, Viber, etc).

The only way to recover any value from this device is to return it for a full refund. If anyone chooses to keep it, it will very soon become a useless brick (for all intents and purposes). And if anything bad ever happens, and that phone was anywhere nearby, the owner could be charged with gross negligence.

I simply can't possibly imagine a reason why anyone would want to hold onto this device under current circumstances.

 

[dsignori]

And then there's this:

Taking a Galaxy Note 7 onto an airplane is now a federal crime - SamMobile

 

[TomOfTx]

Rather than getting deeper into all of the legalities, I will just leave it as my opinion that Samsung would not go to the extreme of bricking a Note 7 without any further government involvement.

 

[anon(661246)]

Hopefully they disable all the note 7's

 

[Jude526]

Why keep it? Why is anyone questioning this? Don't be stubborn. Dump it

 

[NotAnAppleGuy]

Honestly... what will happen? NOTHING... maybe Sammy will disable it, but I doubt it... what they (and carriers) Def will not do is support it.

For someone like me, that's generally fine, but for someone that wants security updates, and general os updates, it's a stumbling block...

Basically, the phone will be obsolete in 3 - 6 months...

I can get by for 9 months with no support for mine.

 

[TabGuy]

This is not about politics. It is about the 4th Amendment protection citizens of the USA enjoy which would prevent a private company like Samsung from unlawfully seizing or disabling private property without any judicial review. This is why I say it is ridiculous to think Samsung or any carrier here could legally disable someones private property such as the Note 7 phone. I own my Note 7 and the recall does not make it illegal to possess the device. Sure, it is banned from bringing on an airplane and such, but firearms are banned too. It does not prevent me from legally possessing the Note 7 or a firearm at this time.

My reference to South Korea not having any constitutional rights was a typo. I meant to say North Korea. Could apply to any country with no constitutional rights against unlawful search or seizure of private property.

Get real. I fired up an old HTC Incredible the other day. The browser won't connect and it won't connect to the Play Store. It's basically a useless device. The same will happen to the Note 7.

 

[Jaycemiskel]

Well, once the story hit, and the CPSC and Samsung issued the stop order, I assume that a substantial percentage of Note 7 owners powered theirs down.

They can catch on fire even if they're off though. Also some article not too long ago said something about a million phones were still in use. I know my carrier still hasn't sent me a box so I doubt most have been returned yet.

 

[Morty2264]

Samsung may force your phone to power down... But the chances of it exploding are smaller than the chances of it maybe, say, overheating or something along those lines.

 

[zombiejerky]

Not sure if it got mentioned here, but IF (that is a big IF) your phone does catch fire, and there was a mandatory recall, you may NOT get compensated for the damage if you were already told to return it. There is a strong case that you willfully accepted the risk by keeping it. I am not an attorney, but I know there is a strong argument to be made there.

I went into one of the carriers a couple of days ago and mentioned that I didn't want to be without a phone until I got my V20. Her response kinda shocked me. "Keep it, if it lights on fire you can easily sue Samsung." Obviously being kind of young and dumb (not saying your are dumb if you are young, just saying she was young and dumb), she doesn't realize that you don't instantly get a blank signed check that falls into your lap from the heavens if you lose your house or vehicle, that is if you actually live through the ordeal.