yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[HTC One Max] mafyas:
I bought max because of its 5.9" fit my palm nicely. No other reason.
[HTC One Max] Weudel:
Maybe 6.2"?
[HTC One Max] Guessphx:
Im assuming since they called it a phablet it will be phablet size. Im guessing that was a typo. But ill definitely be getting one if they out do themselves. If it is just a big m8 idk if I will be grabbing one. Im thinking they better top the competition with this one. That means upgraded camera possibly 4.4.3 minimum!
[HTC One Max] cstrife999:
I actually like the 5.2 size I doubt it's a misprint. The 5" droid DNA was referenced as a phablet so anything like that should be referenced as one.
[HTC One Max] jwhood:
I will never go back to a phone under 5'9 I can't belive I wasted so many of my younger years o 4'3 and 4'7 phones!!!lol
[HTC One Max] Cjohn1200:
Agreed, I can't go down in size...
[HTC One Max] DROID3R:
Not like we had a choice... We didn't have phablets.

The original note was 5.2 inch.

Imagine if we had a 5.9 phone with LG G3 bezel[emoji7]
[HTC One Max] bobsie41:
Like the LG g pro 2 you mean? ;)
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] droideastcoast:
Spoke with my lawyer. Says I have a case against samsung.

1.) Samsung faild to password protect update option

As my almost 2 year old managed to update me to 4.4 from JB 4.1.2. When I did not want 4.3 or 4.4 due to knox.

2.) The knox feature was not advertised when selling the note 2 and other phones sold prior to introducing knox to our phones.

I don't have the money to fork over legal expenses. So lawyer said if I can find more then 400 samsung users who are stuck with knox they would take the case.

If you wish to join reply to post. Once we reach 400 will contact you all with an for proper information.

Pls only use this to count yourself in. Add a comment if you wish when adding yourself but pls no chating. Will make it easy to count who's in this way.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] rogersb11:
I'm in
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] droideastcoast:
They should have given the option when introducing 4.3 and 4.4 of having knox secure boot or not having knox at all.

I'm sure they could have introduced jb 4.3 and kk 4.4 and any other updates without knox and knox secure boot.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] rogersb11:
Bingo. Option is what it should be
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] sZx1:
Count on me
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] emeianoite:
Throw me in the mix, can I go in twice? I have 2 notes dueces.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] ryan9970:
I'm in too.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] fatjoejr2001:
So am I.

Tap, tap says the wicked Note +₩● ?
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] droideastcoast:
Kind of sad that ppl are complaining about knox secure boot and trip but no one is willing to step up and take samsung to court?

Come on guys.

This could also be the answer to removing the secure boot.

If noone steps up then samsung will continue to do this kind of crap.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] pigbait:
In bit my Knox is tripped
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] R1K05@N:
I like Knox... I don't see what the big deal is. Lose the ability to root like Apple so devs have to pull a jailbreak every new version that comes out by vulnerability hunting? I've come to the conclusion that there is no need for me to root anymore. I have become the normal smartphone user who doesn't need more than what comes stock after all these years rooting and bug hunting. It is now a waste of time for me.

And you know what else?

There are millions of people who are just like me who could give a rat's ass about how Knox stops me from rooting my phone.

Before you go flaming, understand that I am talking about myself and the other millions who have no clue that XDA even exists. You can do what you need to feel better about yourself by gathering a class action lawsuit against a multi-billion corporation. Good luck with that.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] Cryingmoose:
This post convinced me to join the lawsuit. That's you opinion and it'a fair,

However I like having choice, freedom, and ownership as a consumer. I don't like having updates remove and change features that I orginally paid for
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] Dishfsm1:
I'm In:mad:
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] KennyG123:
I am sorry but after reading this thread everyday I have to finally say something. You guys are trying to sue Samsung for adding security to your phone to prevent it from being easily hacked, your personal and banking information being stolen, unauthorized use, and not being able to root it and put unauthorized software on it? Got a little bit of news for you, you better start looking for some old phones on swappa and ebay because there are talks that Google is incorporating some of Knox into L OS version. Also Sprint and T-mobile have no issues rooting with the same version of Knox...so maybe you should be looking at what your carrier is doing.

And as for a 2 year old accepting the update, you had options to lock your phone with many different methods. This 2 year old accepted the option to first download it, wait while the file downloaded, then also accepted the option to install now? I do not think this lawyer has all the information. Especially when Google and Samsung on the devil's advocate side would face a much larger lawsuit if doing nothing to try and prevent the millions of non-XDA users from getting their phone hacked. Knox and locked bootloaders have nothing to do with trying to prevent the 100,000 XDA AT&T or Verizon Samsung users from rooting. It is to make the phones as secure as possible for military and business applications.

Here is sammobile's report on "L" and Knox: http://www.sammobile.com/2014/06/25...egrate-knox-into-androids-next-major-release/
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] TerryMathews:
There's a gulf of difference between a device being advertised with a feature and shipping with it and a mandatory update installing said feature.

The carriers didn't even disclose the ramifications of installing OTAs containing Knox.

I don't have an issue with updates changing features over time but something that alters your relationship with your property in such a fashion should be opt-in and after disclosing the ramifications.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] KennyG123:
At no point did Samsung or AT&T guarantee the rootability of a device. And remember, the other millions of owners don't know about these "ramifications" as I am sure they are happy to know that their phone is more secure. Windows updates your system constantly for security updates. If that suddenly stops a Pr0n site from showing up on your PC because it is now considered malicious should they have notified you? The updates do nothing to prevent the out of the box use intended by the device. I am merely stating that this suit has no legal grounds. If you know about rooting and know about hacking, you know not to accept updates until you find out what they are. You should know ways of preventing those updates, and you should know how to secure your phone from anyone using it to accept those updates without your permission. The other millions of users out there can keep moving along blissfully happy that their phone is constantly being updated and not left in the dust.

Why should the carriers disclose that your device be more difficult to root? Rooting is not an authorized procedure supported by the carriers at all! I missed the disclosure by Sony on my PS3 that accepting the update which will allow me to access the Playstation Network is also to prevent jailbreaking it on the current revision. Add to that, read the OP...it states nothing about the carrier. It is a suit directed at Samsung. Knox does not prevent any use of the device which is authorized and supported by the carrier. Also Knox does not prevent rooting as seen on T-Mobile and Sprint forums as well as the international forums.

But I wish you guys luck with the suit and hope the lawyer is accepting this Pro Bono and no one has to dish out any non-refundable legal fees. I just wanted you all to be better informed of what you are asking.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] slaydog:
If I'm not mistaken, the Federal government (USA) guaranteed end users the right to root access of our phones, and recently upheld that law. But does Knox really stop you from rooting it? Luckily I have avoided it because I haven't had a stock ROM for more than a few minutes on my phone since I bought it
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] TerryMathews:
There is a difference between guaranteeing a product's suitability for given task and actively working to reduce that capability.

For instance, let's look at car recalls. Some of them impact how your car behaves, its gas mileage, or its service schedule. Ever notice how the dealer needs your consent before modifying your vehicle?

Your example of Windows Update is equally flawed. Windows Update is an opt-in service which in fact reinforces my earlier point that Knox or system updates in general should be opt-in or at least have a provision for opt-out that doesn't involve rooting your device.

Court cases aren't decided on popularity. If they were, Roe v. Wade would have gone a very different direction (as an example).

I hope you're not a lawyer Kenny...
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] R1K05@N:
Honestly... there's no point in arguing. Whomever goes and does this lawsuit, have fun, good luck, and I hope no money comes out of your own pocket. Your XDA soap box will get you nowhere so go out and do what you have to do to get your rocks off. Even if you even do succeed, enjoy the years of counter-suits and appeals.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] KennyG123:
There is no further point in arguing with you as clearly you are not a lawyer either. No one mentioned popularity. Your arguments are misconstrued and have nothing to do with the focus of the lawsuit. You should reread the "opening statement" a 2 year old "accepted" the update meaning optional, not mandatory, and there are ways for anyone who can search to not accept the OTA or update.

Have a nice day and good luck. As I stated earlier, Knox is now moving to Google and the next version of Android and it also does not prevent rooting if you would just check out the other carriers. This is the main flaw in this law suit. Lawyered :p :)
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] Traqic:
While I have no intention of joining this suit those saying it is stupid are ignorant to the rights of the consumer. The whole point of his lawsuit is to make it mandatory that there be an opt out feature and a clear list of changes when providing an update. The Knox feature for some people is not a feature they want because it changes how they operate their phone. Such a feature being mandatory as part of an update with no explicit details is simply misleading. When you update an app do you generally not have to sign off on new permissions and have a small changelog of important changes? So, your argument against his lawsuit is invalid and you, sir, have been lawered. Good day.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] DjeMBeY:
Hmmm..... You don't have any case with this arguments... There's nothing wrong with KNOX and in near future, we'll see it everywhere..

The BiG problem is that Samsung started to REFUSE repairs under warranty if Knox flag is tripped!!! That's the PROBLEM and you can try to sue them on that subject. From the beginning there was no problem with this and few lucky people (including me) had their phones repaired under warranty but the situation is changing drastically and now, if your KNOX is 0x1, Samsung will officially REFUSE to repair it free of charge!! That's unacceptable!!! Faulty phone has nothing to do with Knox ffs!!

Anyway, I wish you best of luck.

Ps. I've moved from Sammy to Sony and I'm really happy... No KNOX, No Bul*** (so far...)

Sent from my C6903
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] gman223:
I'm in..
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] KennyG123:
Hmmm...I missed anyone calling this lawsuit stupid...without merit yes. I think you should reread the OP before you post. I have a Sprint Note 2 and it is still on 4.1.2...you know why? Because it is optional to accept updates. There are also many means for stopping updates with just a miniscule of research. I do not see how Knox in anyway prevents stock users from using their phone as intended by the carrier. This lawsuit is aimed at Samsung, which is unfounded as it is your carrier AT&T which is providing updates with locked bootloaders coupled with Knox, and not giving you information, which actually I believe there is a changelog posted on AT&T's site just like we have on Sprint. Of course they have no reason to disclose a locked bootloader or higher difficulty of rooting. These things have no affect on using the phone per the TOS which you signed and agreed to. If it was simply Samsung that supplied a locked bootloader all carriers would receive the updates at nearly the same time and with the same locked bootloader.

But again...good luck and really hope no one dishes out money for this lawsuit in non-refundable legal fees.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] stang393:
me
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] ryant100:
If you don't care about root or modding then why be on this site if you don't mind it great but for us that want the option to do whatever we want with the phone we paid for and own this is a pain in the a$$
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] R1K05@N:
I came back around because I wanted to see what the devs are doing with Kit Kat... then I read this thread. That's why I'm on this site. Are you one of those whiney girls who feels someone like me shouldn't show his face around here because I stopped wasting my time bug-hunting on various ROMs and reporting them? Are being territorial? Is that constructive or are you going to bring an actual argument to the thread?

This thread is about a joke of a lawsuit that entitled people want to make happen... Not about why I'm on the site. Stick to the topic.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] fguerra024:
Knox is being integrated into Android L. It is not going away anytime soon.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] Darkangels6sic6:
Then get a different phone...that's your choice. Or get rid of knox. Thanks to the devs here that is extremely simple.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

Even if you did get the option you still would more than likely have been stuck because you're 2 year old.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] Eternalty:
Yeah... This thread is dead... It will be a permanent death very soon
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] Darkangels6sic6:
Yup
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] careet:
Interesting - I'm in. Hope it all works out one way or another.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] DJ Scooby Doo:
I'm also in. 20/20.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] Bwyan Benton:
Lol good luck with this
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] sanjoseweb:
Count me in
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] rangercaptain:
You're not "in" unless you sign a retainer. This thing has been dead for a long time.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] necros081967:
Count me in as well
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] berniebling:
I'm in
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] elizazulak:
Count me in, I hate knox. :highfive:
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] gunit905:
add me to the class action suit.

add me to the class action suit.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] Shortbus-Driver:
I'm in
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] KennyG123:
You guys do realize the OP has not logged in since October 2014 right?
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] Shortbus-Driver:
Lol nope never even looked at the date :-/
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] KennyLG123:
Well it is throw back Thursday or something like that.LOL
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] nliu0704:
Count me in.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] CSmith4000:
Count Me In

I have a S5 not a Note. I understand that Knox can be uninstalled from the Notes but not the S5. It runs constantly in the background. Ever since installing the update which included this program, my phone has been overheating jumping to 125 degrees from little use, to 110 from a phone call. I have had to run U Power Saving to keep it from overheating. I did not have this problem before the update. I now have it in a far less protective case. I dread the damage that's been done by all the overheating and can be done without a protective case. It also gobbles up memory. To make matters worse, the update automatically downloaded to my Tab 4 even though I've set it to not do so. It can't install this update because it's too large. It keeps interrupting what I'm doing to demand it be installed and can't be removed from my notification window without causing other problems. For both devices the size has caused many apps to stop working to make room for itself. Thought I own both devices. The warranty is up on my Tab and almost up on my phone. What business is it for Samsung whether or not I root my privately owned devices after the warranty is up. I loved my S5 and Tab 4 before the problems created by this malware program called Knox and have lost precious time and sleep trying to fix these problems. I am beyond angry over Samsung burning me as a customer and don't ever plan on purchasing another Samsung item again. They obviously can not be trusted. This is coming from someone whose household has other devices made by them. Whoever claims Knox can be removed or doesn't affect the way devices are used clearly doesn't know what they're talking about and may never have made full use of their devices. So, PLEASE COUNT ME IN.

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] KennyG123:
Samsung could care less if you root or not. These security updates are to protect the general populace who don't even know what "rooting" is or does from these hackers trying every minute to access people's phones and financial information. Sprint and T-Mobile Samsung devices have no problem rooting. As mentioned several times in this thread, blame your carrier for fully enforcing the security options, locking bootloaders and the carrier detection spyware in the bloat. Also feel free to blame the hackers forcing companies like Samsung to make their phones more secure which boosts sales and reputation.

But also mentioned in this thread, the guy whose 2 year old performed an update his phone (get that kid an XDA account :p ), the OP, has not logged on for 2 years. So I seriously doubt anyone is taking this "case".
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] nliu0704:
Count me in as well.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] pmdawn:
Count me in. The carriers and the government are using this app to spy on you. The app constantly scans your phone when you think it's idle. That's why I root! I change my OS just to keep my phone from using memory, overheating, and sucking the life out of my battery when my phone should be asleep. I own my phone and they have no right to know what I'm doing with it. I don't have anything to hide but my privacy is important to me. I hate people reading over my shoulder!
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] jolopicus:
me too. if the firm has an online petition/thing send us the link, sometimes that works well to put the personal deets to the lawfirm directly instead of in the forums.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] cokekid76:
im in
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] Ascii3:
How much money are we talking about?

I probably would wish to join.

This is one of the issues. There are some other issues, particular relate with regard to the the Knox Warranty Bit and the e-Fuse technology:

(1) The Knox technology is designed to damage to users equipment (e-Fuse technology).

(a) This may result in the lowering of the value of the devices for which Knox is applied.

(2) The Knox technology does not seem to have been advertised to come with a firmware update. Particularly with devices that that had pre-Knox firmware, no choice or disclose is given with regards the the implementation of a defect or DRM; disclose is required under the laws of United States of America (a lawsuit wherefore may be brought there).

There is also a paper by the United States government Federal Trade Commission that informs about some of the consumer rights for those that may be interested:

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/f...-drm/rosch-berkeley-drm20speech-mar9-2007.pdf

It may also be wise to report Knox to the United States government Federal Trade Commission. It further might help the lawsuit and possibly reduce the Knox problem for the future.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] Ascii3:
At issue to many of us, as I perceive it, is not the increased security; rather, it is the intention introduction of a defect or DRM (Data Rights Management) without disclosing it. Further, there appears to be a malicious intent with said defect or DRM: a device may intentionally and automatically damage itself in hardware (using what is e-fuse technology). Further, the added security features by Knox are disallowed to those for which the device has been damaged by the Knox technology even when the device firmware is fully restored to stock (using a Samsung Kies or Samsung Smart Switch, for example).

You may be interested in reading what Samsung has added to a FAQ with regards to this:

https://www.samsungknox.com/en/faq/what-knox-warranty-bit-and-how-it-triggered

I have also attached a PDF 1.4 document to this post preserving the information.

The Samsung document also seems to relate the intent of the introduction of defect to guard against rooting. The intended logic appears to be: If you do not want the Samsung device to intentionally damage itself (and consequently lose value), do not root the device.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] KennyG123:
Ummm... Did you read the OP at all? He was mad and suing because his 2 year old accepted an update. We need to get that kid an account here because a few others had trouble just updating :p. That resulted in him losing root and inability to downgrade. This is not a path promised or warranted by Samsung. Incidentally, I have Sprint and Knox on my Note 4 with root. So it is not Samsung you need to go after.

As far as denying root, of course they will try to prevent root... It's their job to make the devices most secure. It's hackers ' jobs to try to find ways around it. Root allows hackers into your phone to steal all your banking information and ID. Why wouldn't 99.9% of the consumers want to prevent that?

I am not advocating what Knox does from a developer stand point but can certainly see it from a regular consumer and sales volume stand point.

Not sure why you are reviving this long dead thread.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] Ascii3:
I did indeed.

I do believe the thread to still be valid. With regards to the thread revival, the age of the last post of this thread was not significant with regards to the decision to post content.

The legal issue is not whether or or Knox or other Samsung provided security is desirable or a valid implementation notwithstanding requirements of notice; it is regarding adequate notice by Samsung and damages that arise consequently due to that failure.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note II] KennyG123:
So, you are saying that your issue is that Samsung does not warn you tampering with your phone may cause damage to it? :eek:

Yet this is exclusive to AT&T, not say Sprint or T-Mobile?

Good luck with the lawsuit and finding another lawyer to take it.
[T-Mobile Samsung Galaxy Note 3] cangoodz:
Hi I'm still on 4.3 MI7, should i update to 4.4? I've heard people saying in the forums that 4.3 is still better. what would you suggest? I just want to root either way i end up going. My pervious note 3 was rooted through ODIN with knox tripped, but when i got my replacement i never rooted it so I'm stock right now. If i stay on MI7 would i be able to use towel method to root? From my understanding NE6 would work with towel method but wasn't sure with MI7. What are some pros or cons to updating to 4.4? Any help would be useful :o

P.S. if i do update why would be the easiest way to keep all my data, apps , ext.. thanks in advance ~CANGOODZ~
[T-Mobile Samsung Galaxy Note 3] Slappy_G:
I'm holding off as well. I'm waiting for confirmation that there is a safe way to roll back. Once I see that, I may go for it.

In the interim, I've been considering Darth stalker as a ROM.