Right to root access • Hacker News Board

Re: Right to root access

#291

Post by lapcat » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 5:38 PM UTC

Ajedi32 wrote: post #283

freedomben wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why _do_ consumers tolerate manufacturers retaining ultimate control of consumer's property after the sale? Just my opinion from many conversations with normies about this: It's because most of them don't know (the marketing material from these companies certainly doesn't advertise it), and the ones who do know don't care because they wouldn't be able to (technical knowledge) or want to root/unlock and utilize the…

> the ones who do know don't care because they wouldn't be able to (technical knowledge) or want to root/unlock and utilize the capabilities This is a good point. Some of that is perhaps self-perpetuating: Why root if there's nothing you can do with root? And why develop stuff you can do with root if there's nobody who can use it? If there weren't so much active suppression of software freedom by manufacturers maybe…

And ironically, it was the jailbreakers who demonstrated to Apple why the company needed to add third-party apps to its platform that originally didn't allow them.

Re: Right to root access

#292

Post by ubermonkey » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 5:40 PM UTC

I'm always amazed at the number of folks who are really, really mad that there exist products and services not intended for them.

If you are a very technical person, and you want to have root on every device you own, then iOS is not for you. That's ok. Android exists!

But iOS as an appliance-level, walled-garden environment is absolutely perfect FOR MOST USERS. And that's fine.

Nursing a grudge because Apple makes products that include choices that YOU PERSONALLY don't like is incredibly weird and entitled. Just buy something else! There are options!

Re: Right to root access

#293

Post by arsome » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 5:40 PM UTC

yndoendo wrote: post #43

lrvick wrote: post #25

I detest Google, but I do think they made the right call with Android devices and Chromebooks. You can unlock either as long as you are willing to totally wipe the device first and start over as a new device under a new security context. This removes the risk of this being abused to compromise the data of stolen devices or evil maid attacks unless a user that knows what they are doing has explicitly opted themselves…

I contacted the Google through the BBB. Made the statement that lack of ability to install and configure a Kernel level firewall, edit the HOSTS file, and remove unwanted bloat-ware reduces the security of the product. Google agreed their actions do this and said they find the lack of security acceptable. Having a firewall like Little Snitch should be acceptable to know where the phone is communicate, with whom, and…

There are indeed software firewalls on Android that use the VPN functionality to implement something like this so they don't even require root, I believe Glasswire offers one.

Re: Right to root access

#294

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 5:42 PM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #180

raxxor wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If protection of the casual user was an argument, there would be an easy option to unlock your system, be that phones or desktop computers. But on many systems these options do not exist because the vendor likes people dependent on them. This is why devices like chromebooks or all mobile phones are more or less e-waste in the making. In my opinion it is a waste to use any development capacity for these systems apart…

> If protection of the casual user was an argument, there would be an easy option to unlock your system, be that phones or desktop computers. Making it easy to unlock could make it easy(er) for scammers to get it unlocked: > I received the same type of call a little later in the day. They were very adamant they were calling from the Bell data centre, on a terrible line and I made them call back three more times while…

> Making it easy to unlock could make it easy(er) for scammers to get it unlocked

Making laptops that weigh two pounds instead of 40 pounds could make it easier for thieves to steal them. Making computers less expensive could increase the number of spammers who can afford one and make it easier to send spam. Making encryption widely available could make it easier for bad actors to communicate.

But these things have countervailing benefits, so we do them anyway and then address the problems by a different means. When someone insists on doing it in the way that "incidentally" provides them with a commercial advantage, suspect an ulterior motive.

Re: Right to root access

#295

Post by Dalewyn » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 5:43 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #266

regnull wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before we put all the blame on vendors, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, this: the public finds this tradeoff (privacy for entertainment) completely acceptable. With all the outrage, privacy-centric solutions are out there and relatively easy to find, how come they don't get more traction? Including among the HN crowd?

I have no data to back this up. So what follows is purely my personal opinion. I think the reason people don't care, is because they don't know. The average person either doesn't know or barely knows That anything deeper than what they see in the user interface is happening on their system. We humans are very much an out of sight out of mind type of creature. If we can't see it, it's hard for us to imagine that it ex…

People know, Facebook and Google getting crap for all their tracking is evidence enough.

The reason people don't care is because digital freedom/privacy is largely irrelevant to most people's lives. You can't convince someone to care about something that doesn't affect their life, they're too busy for that.

Re: Right to root access

#296

Post by beefnugs » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 5:47 PM UTC

kachapopopow wrote: post #184

The reason why this will never happen is simply due to things like DRM. We right now have ENCRYPTED signal going from our computer to our displays, not just computers, but phones too SIMPLY to prevent people from dumping raw data. All of that extra processing done just so you're allowed to for ex: watch netflix with a resolution higher than 720p. Then comically there's Chinese capture cards that you plug your GPU int…

There is nothing stopping anyone from selling an HSM (hardware security module) that can decode their protected video without fisting the control into the computer itself

Re: Right to root access

#297

Post by Ajedi32 » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 5:49 PM UTC

klabb3 wrote: post #248

Ajedi32 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't about privacy. Not directly anyway. This is about your right to have control of your own property. You make a fair point though; the case does need to be made as to why this is a market failure and not just consumer choice working as expected. Why _do_ consumers tolerate manufacturers retaining ultimate control of consumer's property after the sale? It certainly doesn't seem to be that important to them. M…

> This isn't about privacy. Not directly anyway. Agree fully. Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. I accept the risk or tradeoff of Apple or MS spying on me. It’s not that, but the right to repair, to tinker, to hack. Those things have brought us so much interesting wonderful things. My entire generation (millennial) has superior tech literacy to both those that came before and after (no shade to the older gen - so…

Market failures do happen, so I'm not claiming consumer choice is the perfect solution in every case. But consumers aren't stupid either; if this _were_ a mainstream concern the market _would_ self-correct. But it hasn't self-corrected on this issue, because most consumers don't really care that much. So I think you have to carefully consider why that is before you start thinking you know what they want better than than they do and eliminating certain choices by government decree.

There are costs to any regulation, and lots of possible unintended consequences. So even though I'm personally a strong advocate for user control and software freedom, I'm wary of acting without strong justification and careful consideration of the underlying reasons behind the status quo.

> I accept the risk or tradeoff of Apple or MS spying on me.

For what it's worth, I do think this issue has indirect effects on privacy. If you have ultimate control of the software on your device, you can use that control in ways that help protect your privacy. Otherwise you're limited to whatever protections the manufacturer decides to grant you.

There are lots of similar positive possible downstream effects of software freedom, which is why I think this is an issue worth serious consideration despite my misgivings.

Re: Right to root access

#298

Post by pseudocomposer » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 5:50 PM UTC

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #268

pseudocomposer wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I was disagreeing with the GP specifically about Apple products. I'm an Apple user, but very much because they're the "least bad" option. De-Googled Android phones still have awful audio latency (I'm a musician who makes a music app on the side), very limited messaging and notification features, and integrate poorly with desktop OSes. For how I use my devices, open or no, Android simply isn't a viable optio…

> Apple's products being well-integrated and well-designed doesn't require them to be locked down the way they are. That's definitely true, and it's what has made me favor Google over Apple for decades now. Google's deal has been free software for the price of your user data, but I've accepted that deal because Google has never practiced predatory lock-in . Apple makes claims to value your privacy (I wouldn't know) w…

I think we're very much in agreement on most of these things, and our "platform loyalty" led us to perceive different options as the "least bad" - that's totally okay, though! I was an Android user from 2009-2020 because I agreed with you, up until I started working on my own music software, which pushed things the other way for me.

For your last sentence, though... user data and its utilities are arguably not a "bubble." And as we've seen with AI training, use of data being illegal doesn't really stop companies from doing it. I think we'll have better actual results from governments forcing Apple to let us run our own software on the hardware we buy, as opposed to governments trying to prevent Google, Meta, et. al. from abusing customer data.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that the former is about regulating our rights with hardware, while the latter is about software. Hardware is just easier for governments to regulate. When you try to regulate software, companies will do things like the deliberately-annoying cookie popups we got after GDPR/CCPA, because it's cheap to produce lots of bullshit to experiment with ways around those regulations.

Re: Right to root access

#299

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 5:55 PM UTC

sumtechguy wrote: post #271

raxxor wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If protection of the casual user was an argument, there would be an easy option to unlock your system, be that phones or desktop computers. But on many systems these options do not exist because the vendor likes people dependent on them. This is why devices like chromebooks or all mobile phones are more or less e-waste in the making. In my opinion it is a waste to use any development capacity for these systems apart…

> But on many systems these options do not exist because the vendor likes people dependent on them. Dependent is not exactly the right thing here. Lower support costs probably is. If a vendor gives out root access. If that root access can brick a machine. Then you will get a small percentage of very high touch broken things as returns. Customers like this are in the 'dangerous enough' but not 'good enough to do it co…

That only explains why a company wouldn't want to provide free software support for software they didn't write. There are at least two alternatives to that. First, sell hardware the user can replace the software on, or that doesn't even come with software, and then don't provide software support at all. Second, provide software support and bill by the hour, in which case the customer messing up their stuff and calling your support is the opposite of a problem.

You can even combine them if you want. Free support for the software that comes with it but if you replace the boot loader then support calls are billed hourly. There is no excuse for not allowing it -- it's leaving money on the table.

Unless the reason is that locking the user out of the device has the purpose of monopolizing ancillary markets, which should be an antitrust violation.

Re: Right to root access

#300

Post by dns_snek » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 5:57 PM UTC

sumtechguy wrote: post #271

raxxor wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If protection of the casual user was an argument, there would be an easy option to unlock your system, be that phones or desktop computers. But on many systems these options do not exist because the vendor likes people dependent on them. This is why devices like chromebooks or all mobile phones are more or less e-waste in the making. In my opinion it is a waste to use any development capacity for these systems apart…

> But on many systems these options do not exist because the vendor likes people dependent on them. Dependent is not exactly the right thing here. Lower support costs probably is. If a vendor gives out root access. If that root access can brick a machine. Then you will get a small percentage of very high touch broken things as returns. Customers like this are in the 'dangerous enough' but not 'good enough to do it co…

Damage caused by the customer isn't covered by any warranty anyway, and realistically, how many people would tinker with root access as long as the device worked as intended?

I'd be really surprised if the number was more than 1 in 100. And if 1 in 20 brick the device in the process, that's 1 in 2000.

According to [1] the average warranty claims rate for consumer electronics is 1 in 100. I doubt the difference in support load would even register on the scale.

[1] https://www.warrantyweek.com/archive/ww20240711.html