pandapoo

Except I have used unlocked IMEI blacklisted devices on different carriers, so if one exists in theory, it doesn't appear to be there in practice.

No, they are not. Blacklists are per carrier, at least when dealing with American primary carriers, and not MVNOs.

It's unfortunate that this method was initially used because it was an intentionally ambiguous method of assassination, whereas now it's a signature assassination, with only a sprinkling of ambiguity for their local media.

Just think, if they had started with tragic hot air balloon accident, death by misadventure with a jet ski, or pet bear mauling?

This is not me defending any telecom, but locking subsidized phones during the contract period, is one of the only reasonably legitimate use cases for carrier locking.

And the reason is simple, fraud. Carrier locked phones that have been reported for fraud/nonpayment, can't be used off network. It doesn't help recover the cost for the carrier, but it does deter that type of fraud.

Whereas unlocked phones can just be taken to another network, which means they're resale value is worth the effort to steal in the first place.

Now, all that is true, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of it, or that telecoms have ever made unlocking fully paid phones easy, they haven't, so fuck them.

And before anyone points it out, yes, I'm aware locked phones still have have value for fraud, but that fraud typically has a higher threshold for entry, as it involves having the contacts who can leverage overseas black markets.

To borrow a phrase that is fast approaching cliche, the enshitification process has begun.

They sent out a trial balloon by updating licensing to move further away from an open source model, with a wide range of implications.

They've now backed off claiming "it was a bug", but it's not like their MBA's are business strategy wunderkinds. They're just rehashing the same old strategy, and going by the downvotes my comment received, there's still an audience that believes them.

But who are they kidding? This isn't going away, and when someone shows you who they are, you should believe them.

Like I said earlier, the only variable is the timetable. The destination is a foregone conclusion.

And now that you know they still took VC funding, are you still going to keep giving them your money?

Honest question, because I'm in your same boat and I know I'm not.

My renewal is coming up. I've been a premium customer for probably 7 years or so, I'm not renewing.

This wasn't a bug, this was a toe in the water to gauge the temperature.

Like it or not, this means they've chosen a path, and nothing is going to stop them from going down it. The only variable is the timetable.

Do you often find yourself in tall buildings and alone with oligarchs or siloviki?

If so, sure why not.

The classics are the point. These aren't meant to be secretive killings, the signature is the message.

They would use a different method if they wanted to obscure responsibility, dispose of the body, or do any number of things differently. Because they didn't, means it was a public signing statement.

Whether it was intended for one recipient, or many, who's to say. Either way, you can be sure the intended party, or parties, received it.

Did you even read the article...?

Because if you had, you would know that the credit terms were established prior to Musk's takeover.

The US is actually the one that trained, armed, and supported their previous military dictatorship, including Prabowo.

Here's one example, but there's no shortage of other crimes against humanity during this period, most sponsored by the US, either directly, or indirectly, depending on the incident.

That wasn't their point. They assumed that billing terms aren't already predicated upon an "airtight" contract. I'm not sure how they're defining airtight, but a contract is a legal agreement, and when there's a dispute, those get addressed in court, such as this, right now.

This misunderstanding isn't entirely unreasonable. If someone hasn't dealt with these types of transactions in a business setting, it's not reasonable to expect them to understand how they work, or why they function like that.