Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Right to root access

medhir.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 428 posts

Re: Right to root access

#141

Post by jmb99 »

hamandcheese wrote: post #49
jbombadil wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't want an unlocked bootloader, just don't unlock your bootloader. That kind of logic cuts both ways: "If you don't want a device with a locked boot loader, just don't buy a device with a locked bootloader". Unfortunately, as consumers, we're trapped between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, I would want 100% freedom to use my device exactly as I see fit and run any software I want, without any fo…

> I am happy my iPhone doesn't allow Meta to say "to use WhatsApp, you must install the MetaStore®, give it root and install it from there". I think the inverse is a much more credible threat, though. "Sorry, you cant sign in to your bank because you are using Linux. Please try again on windows 11 with secure boot turned on" doesn't seem far fetched at all.

Not that I would agree with such a policy (I currently do online bank using Linux), but why is it not within the bank’s rights to make that restriction? If they determine (with whatever degree of accuracy) that online banking from Linux/rooted androids/jailbroken iphones is too risky, why should they be required to allow it?

Re: Right to root access

#142

Post by jmb99 »

alex7734 wrote: post #69
jbombadil wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't want an unlocked bootloader, just don't unlock your bootloader. That kind of logic cuts both ways: "If you don't want a device with a locked boot loader, just don't buy a device with a locked bootloader". Unfortunately, as consumers, we're trapped between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, I would want 100% freedom to use my device exactly as I see fit and run any software I want, without any fo…

> I am happy my iPhone doesn't allow Meta to say "to use WhatsApp, you must install the MetaStore®, give it root and install it from there". I would not be happy with those restrictions on my desktop. You fix that by making root access inconvenient enough that companies can't rely on the average random user having it enabled. For example force you to wipe the device to unlock it as another person said in another comm…

> You fix that by making root access inconvenient enough that companies can't rely on the average random user having it enabled.

AI TikTok voice “Hey guys, if you just bought a new iPhone, make sure you remove Apple’s restriction locks so they can’t control what you install. Just follow these easy steps, but make sure you do it as soon as possible, since you’ll have to set up your phone again!”

With the comments filled with people talking about how terrible Apple is for locking down their phones, everyone’s an idiot for buying such a locked down phone so they better at least unlock the bootloader, etc.

This is not a far-fetched scenario based on some videos I’ve seen sent to me by friends.

Re: Right to root access

#143

Post by jmb99 »

jbombadil wrote: post #103
stavros wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those restrictions aren't on your desktop, where you do have root. Why would they be on your phone if you had root on that?

They are on your desktop. Have you tried installing any game you bought through Steam lately? They all install a custom launcher / updater / stuff that ends up in startup.

Literally 0 games I own on steam have any startup items. Custom launchers yes, but not startup items. A few games have kernel anticheat, but they all start with the game.

The exception is FaceIt for counter strike, but that’s not distributed through steam and is entirely third-party.

Re: Right to root access

#144

Post by jopsen »

> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright.

That's easy to say, but hard to legislate, and impossible to enforce.

There is so much firmware around, small binary blobs burned into micro controllers that can't even be updated. Or that isn't intended to be updated.

There are probably even dimmable LED bulbs without IoT features that still have a microcontroller.

Because a tiny microcontroller is the cheapest way to add logic to anything.

I'm not sure it isn't a good idea. Just not sure we grasp the ramifications.

Re: Right to root access

#145

Post by homebrewer »

mixdup wrote: post #35
lapcat wrote: post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

There's a difference between being able to buy something dangerous and being forced to do so

We're heading the opposite way of not being able to buy anything "dangerous" thanks to consumers that you're describing. I've been using a Xiaomi phone that stopped receiving updates in 2020, and have since been running LineageOS, which was made possible by the unlocked bootloader. Xiaomi has since changed its policy and it's basically impossible to unlock the bootloader on newer devices.

If not for the "dangerous" unlocking, I would have to run with dozens of severe vulnerabilities right now, all five years worth of them. A decent phone costs large amounts of money here, the hardware on mine is still very good, and so I would have used it regardless. (Yes, I understand that the firmware does not receive updates, but it's still much better than nothing.)

Re: Right to root access

#146

Post by eesmith »

frizlab wrote: post #138
golergka wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, but no. I'm never buying a device with easy root access for a non technical family member ever again. Freedom is great, and I'm using this freedom to buy something with exactly the capabilities I need.

It’s impressive how many people downvote this actually über reasonable opinion…

That's because the opinion presents a strawman position. From the linked-to page :

> I agree with the premise that consumer devices, such as mobile phones, should be as secure as they can by default. This can even go so far as shipping new devices with locked bootloaders and blocking access to root. ..

> But this shouldn’t come at the expense of being able to make an informed choice to unlock these privileges to install any software you want, even if that means adopting a higher level of risk.

One does not require "easy root access" to make that informed choice - complicated root access (within reason, as pulling out the soldering iron might be a step too far) should be enough for tasks like installing a new OS because the company no longer supports the hardware.

Re: Right to root access

#147

Post by user_7832 »

petesergeant wrote: post #96

Contrarian take: you bought the device, that you knew already did not provide that, from a company who has priced in not having to support rooted devices, and who had priced in your future revenue from extras. The company can't complain if you find a way to root it (and they don't), but they're under no obligation to add in this extra feature you're asking for. If you want a mostly-open handheld device, they're for s…

Correct me if I’m wrong but the base AOSP android rom allows bootloader unlocking by default. OEMs need to go out of their way to restrict it.

Also, most manufacturers consider the warranty void of the bootloader has been unlocked. There’s definitely no service (costs) for them on that front, and I’d be amazed if even 0.1% of all customers unlocked the bootloader (for it to be big enough to notice for any company).

Re: Right to root access

#148

Post by alias_neo »

golergka wrote: post #98
lapcat wrote: post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

Thanks, but no. I'm never buying a device with easy root access for a non technical family member ever again. Freedom is great, and I'm using this freedom to buy something with exactly the capabilities I need.

So they'll never use a PC or laptop or anything of that ilk again?

To use the same logic, they shouldn't be given anything with a visible screw, or are you going to tell me they _wouldn't_ take a screw driver to an appliance because that would be silly for someone who doesn't know what they're doing in there?

Re: Right to root access

#149

Post by eesmith »

lapcat wrote: post #56
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A sketchy spark plug does not have the ability to make a car explode, so the analogy is pointless. On that note, even if someone stole your car, at least your car does not have access to your bank account, your passwords, your messages, and even your sexual history. The personal and reputational cost of losing a car is not comparable. Many people would actually probably prefer their car to be stolen than the contents…

> On that note, even if someone stole your car, at least your car does not have access to your bank account, your passwords, your messages, and even your sexual history. The personal and reputational cost of losing a car is not comparable. You're conflating vendor lockdown with device encryption. The latter does not require the former.

While cars don't have access to your complete sexual history, note that https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/privacy-nightmare-on-... points out:

"The very worst offender is Nissan. The Japanese car manufacturer admits in their privacy policy to collecting a wide range of information, including sexual activity, health diagnosis data, and genetic data — but doesn’t specify how. They say they can share and sell consumers’ “preferences, characteristics, psychological trends, predispositions, behavior, attitudes, intelligence, abilities, and aptitudes” to data brokers, law enforcement, and other third parties."

Re: Right to root access

#150

Post by bell-cot »

golergka wrote: post #98
lapcat wrote: post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

Thanks, but no. I'm never buying a device with easy root access for a non technical family member ever again. Freedom is great, and I'm using this freedom to buy something with exactly the capabilities I need.

And here is (in effect) a completely legitimate reason for manufacturers to wall off root access. They did not want to sell and support a full-access, general-purpose computer. Nor provide liability coverage for anyone who reprograms their toaster and starts a fire.
Post reply on HN