Latest Amazon Fire OS update breaks existing encryption

[Mew]

Quote

As Apple continues to battle the FBI in favor of device encryption, it appears that Amazon has quietly gone the other way. According to several owners of Amazon's tablets, the latest Fire OS 5 update actually removes encryption support from its devices. That means that if you previously had your Fire device encrypted, the latest OS update will essentially break that encryption.

 

Wow, just wow. I was never fond of Amazon, but this is really messed up. Even if Amazon doesn't have much of a marketshare in mobile devices, this shouldn't be happening, especially not intentionally. 

 

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2016/03/03/amazon-removes-encryption-support-in-latest-fire-os-update/

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amazon-removes-encryption-fire-devices,31325.html#xtor=RSS-100

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/amazon-encryption-kindle-fire-operating-system/

[bcredeur97]

the future is terrible.

[iamdarkyoshi]

WTF? I guess Amazon would probably offer a refund for anyone with a complaint...

[QueenDemetria]

And suddenly I no longer care about Amazon devices. 

[Dabombinable]

Once again a company goes full retard and doesn't leave their customers with a choice.

[suicidalfranco]

 

"Think about the children"

[zMeul]

source: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2016/03/04/amazon-drops-fire-encryption/1

 

Quote

Fire OS 5 update for Amazon's Kindle Fire, Fire HD, Fire TV stick, and staggeringly unpopular Fire Phone devices brings a seriously unwelcome change: the loss of the ability to encrypt data stored locally on the device. Worse, when installed on a device running a previous Fire OS and already using Android's built-in storage encryption facility, the update will refuse to install until the user manually decrypts the storage.

 

Amazon has defended the move, claiming that 'when we released Fire OS 5, we removed some enterprise features that we found customers weren’t using.'

 

oh, nice guys Amazon .. NOT!

what exactly was wrong with keeping the encryption option on the customer's device, even if he/she didn't use it?

could it be that Amazon doesn't want to deal with the FBI nor the US justice system? you betcha !

[Orangeator]

That is a violation of our US rights and privacy. They should not be able to do that. Amazon I hope this bites you in the ass.

[Starelementpoke]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

source: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2016/03/04/amazon-drops-fire-encryption/1

 

 

oh, nice guys Amazon .. NOT!

what exactly was wrong with keeping the encryption option on the customer's device, even if he/she didn't use it?

could it be that Amazon doesn't want to deal with the FBI nor the US justice system? you betcha !

To be fair, it´s the Government. They aren´t exactly what you call a small threat. (Let me make it clear, I do not agree with Amazon´s decision. I just personally don´t think it´s fair to get this angry at them for just trying to avoid trouble.)

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

That is a violation of our US rights and privacy. They should not be able to do that. Amazon I hope this bites you in the ass.

Encrypted data isn't a right.... 

[Orangeator]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Encrypted data isn't a right.... 

It's a constitutional right. Freedom to privacy, and if I encrypt data on my PC and it requires a password the government cannot unlock it. I would just plea the 5th meaning I do not have to incriminate myself. Also if I use aes-256 bit encryption with a 64 character truly random key they could never brute force it.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Orangeator said:

It's a constitutional right. Freedom to privacy, and if I encrypt data on my PC and it requires a password the government cannot unlock it. I would just plea the 5th meaning I do not have to incriminate myself. Also if I use aes-256 bit encryption with a 64 character truly random key they could never brute force it.

No....encrypted data is not a constitutional right. You might not have to give up the passcode to your encrypted devie, but that doesn't make it a rights violation if Amazon removes encryption. 

[Orangeator]

18 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

11 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

No....encrypted data is not a constitutional right. You might not have to give up the passcode to your encrypted devie, but that doesn't make it a rights violation if Amazon removes encryption. 

Encrypted data isn't a right.... 

4th amendment gives me the right to protect(secure) may papers/personal belongings from everyone including the government. So they cannot make encryption illegal since it is the only way to protect digital data. 4th amendment quote, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." If amazon does not give me the ability to safe guard my data then it is a privacy violation.

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071216/163110.shtml

 

And since I have a right to encrypt my data and the right not to incriminate myself, that means the US government cannot access my data if I choose to encrypt it. End of story drop the microphone.

[Tataffe]

33 minutes ago, zMeul said:

source: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2016/03/04/amazon-drops-fire-encryption/1

 

 

oh, nice guys Amazon .. NOT!

what exactly was wrong with keeping the encryption option on the customer's device, even if he/she didn't use it?

could it be that Amazon doesn't want to deal with the FBI nor the US justice system? you betcha !

It would be fair to mention that this has been the case since the release of FireOS 5 back in September 2015. But what do we expect from @zMeul ...

 

Source

[Sakkura]

14 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

4th amendment gives me the right to protect(secure) may papers/personal belongings from everyone including the government. So they cannot make encryption illegal since it is the only way to protect digital data. 4th amendment quote, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." If amazon does not give me the ability to safe guard my data then it is a privacy violation.

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071216/163110.shtml

 

And since I have a right to encrypt my data and the right not to incriminate myself, that means the US government cannot access my data if I choose to encrypt it. End of story drop the microphone.

The 4th amendment applies to the government, not companies like Amazon. 

[Orangeator]

7 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The 4th amendment applies to the government, not companies like Amazon. 

It is the companies responsibility to give us the ability to protect our data if we should choose to do so.

 

Them taking away encryption from their devices is a privacy violation (in the US) as it takes out right to privacy away. @Sakkura

[79wjd]

18 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

It is the companies responsibility to give us the ability to protect our data if we should choose to do so.

 

Them taking away encryption from their devices is a privacy violation (in the US) as it takes out right to privacy away. @Sakkura

No....it's not. 

 

Amazon has no obligation to encrypt your data on your own personal devices. 

[LAwLz]

They could not have chosen a worse time to remove it...

I don't get why they want to remove it. They say it wasn't widely used but why completely remove it? It does not hurt anyone to have a feature that is rarely used in your OS. How much space does that function take up anyway? Like 10MB or so?

 

What a massive space saving we get from the removal of that feature! Thanks Amazon!

/sarcasm.

[Orangeator]

11 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

No....it's not. 

 

Amazon has no obligation to encrypt your data on your own personal devices. 

Not what I said, your right about what you said though. They have no obligation to encrypt my data on my device, however they have an obligation to give me the ability to encrypt data on my device.

[SurvivorNVL]

And with that I won't be buying products on Amazon.

[LAwLz]

Just now, Orangeator said:

Not what I said, your right about what you said though. They have no obligation to encrypt my data on my device, however they have an obligation to give me the ability to encrypt data on my device.

That's not what the bill of rights says. It does not force companies like Amazon to enable you to encrypt your data. It is still their device and they can enable/disable whichever feature they want. It's a really shitty move, but it is not unconstitutional.

[Orangeator]

Just now, LAwLz said:

That's not what the bill of rights says. It does not force companies like Amazon to enable you to encrypt your data. It is still their device and they can enable/disable whichever feature they want. It's a really shitty move, but it is not unconstitutional.

Source for what you have said? And well if that is true it sure as hell should be. That contradicts the 4th amendment then again, so does Chrome. Haha.

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

Don't buy FireOS then? 

[GeekJump]

7 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

Not what I said, your right about what you said though. They have no obligation to encrypt my data on my device, however they have an obligation to give me the ability to encrypt data on my device.

(1) Right to privacy, yes. Right to data encryption? Nope (maybe in the future but not now)

(2) The constitution applies to the federal government not companies

(3) Amazon has the right to do w/e they want to their products, just like you as the consumer have the right not to buy it

(4) Who buy's Amazon OS products?

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

Source for what you have said? And well if that is true it sure as hell should be. That contradicts the 4th amendment then again, so does Chrome. Haha.

Here is the fourth amendment:

Quote

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

What it means is that the government is not allowed to walk into your home and take your computer without the appropriate warrant. There is a very big difference between "taking your thing" and "not helping your protect your thing". The amendment protects from the former. Amazon is doing the latter since they neither doing a search nor seizure of your property.