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

341–350 of 428 posts

Re: Right to root access

#341

Post by markus_zhang »

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…

I think in the not too far future, every electronics device will be locked down. Laptops and desktops can be locked down too. The technology is already there. They can also throw in AI for recommendations i.e. lock down users' mind too. Think what this is going to do to the next generation if they start using electronic products from 6.

For example, if anyone is interested, check out the computers Chinese governments are using right now. They are basically large mobile phones running some sort of Linux, but the whole thing is locked down. Fortunately things are OK on the commercial side but again it's more and more difficult to root or unlock a device.

And now the Western states are following suite, except it's the corporations that are leading the charge.

If they achieve this, and wipe out all commercial electronics distributors such as Mouse, then we need another underground railway movement to teach people to scavenge and build computers in that Dark Age.

I'm not joking. This could be real. It's already shaping.

Re: Right to root access

#342

Post by markus_zhang »

grishka wrote: post #161

The problem is larger than that, it's the IT industry's obsession with denying users the ability to evaluate their own risks and take their own responsibility. You do that all the time every day in most other areas of life, but somehow interacting with technology is different. The manufacturer always knows better. Don't want to have a time component to your biometric authentication because you know your risks? Too ba…

I doubt any Apple engineer is very against the idea that an iPad user roots it. It's more like the legal and financial mindset. Legal doesn't want trouble and can shoot anyone who it doesn't like with law bullets, Finance just want MAW $$$.

Re: Right to root access

#344

Post by regnull »

markus_zhang wrote: post #340
regnull wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: https://us.starlabs.systems/ Now, how many of you guys have this? Or anything like this? I bet 95% of the HN crowd happily uses iOS/Android daily.

This is the first time I heard about it. Has anyone looked into their claims? Would love to buy an affordable Linux pad or a mini PC.

FWIW, I have no idea if this is any good. My point is, I found this after maybe 3 minutes searching. If we were to spend 30 minutes, we would definitely find something reasonable.

Re: Right to root access

#345

Post by TeMPOraL »

dns_snek wrote: post #288
throw0101a wrote: post #180

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. 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…

Easy doesn't mean without any warning, it just means that the device is unlockable by design and without OEM's approval. It would be reasonable to: - factory reset the device before unlocking it to protect existing data (like Android phones require) - display warnings, for example "if someone's asking you to do this, it's probably a scam" - for the owner to be allowed to permanently disable unlocking, e.g. the common…

> for the owner to be allowed to permanently disable unlocking, e.g. the commonly cited example of someone setting the device up for their elderly parents

This opens a wormhole that warps us back to one of the core issues / battlegrounds in computing: ownership, and specifically, the balance of power and responsibility between the owner and the user, when they're not the same person.

Unfortunately, the same means and the same arguments cited in case of "someone setting the device up for their elderly parents" also apply to employers "setting the device up" for their employees (where "setting the device up" may just mean letting it access the company network), vendors "helpfully" "setting the device up" for the customers (this is basically the whole history of mobile phones - bootloaders now, SIM locks before), etc.

I don't know what the good answer is. I'm personally strongly biased towards "end-user should always be the owner" perspective, and while I recognize there are strong examples where this isn't the case, I can't figure out how to cleanly separate "legitimate interest" from for-profit or for-power abuse.

Re: Right to root access

#346

Post by notorandit »

Yes, please! Unfortunately, your smartphone doesn't (really) belong to you. It's a shared property between the hardware maker, the low level software producer (Qualcomm or Apple), the os owner (Google or Apple) and maybe finally you.

Undocumented hardware plus closed source drivers for almost everything make all this possible.

Re: Right to root access

#347

Post by amelius »

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…

Computers can be dangerous, but the solution is not to let the vendor control security. It is to allow third parties to provide security products.

Re: Right to root access

#348

Post by amelius »

diggan wrote: post #320
PittleyDunkin wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Freedom - the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints" Yea, this is a nice thought if you don't live in society. However, it falls apart pretty rapidly once you realize "your freedom to stops at my freedom from". So it's a non-starter.

> Yea, this is a nice thought if you don't live in society Well, democracies are societies, and you have much freedom in (most of) those. Not sure where you live, but if possible, you can always try to vacation in one to experience it yourself :) > "your freedom to stops at my freedom from" I don't understand what this means, nor how it relates to having root access on your digital devices. Could you possibly explain…

Probably means something like: if you eat this donut then I cannot eat it, ergo your freedom and my freedom are at odds.

Re: Right to root access

#349

Post by jwmcq »

mattclarkdotnet wrote: post #128
seszett wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Australia, doing your own electrical work is a crime even for the homeowner, because it can cause physical death, and is too likely to be done wrong. Yes, you will possibly go to jail for replacing $2 light switches And do you find this reasonable, and a good thing to expand to smartphone use?

It’s bullshit, there are no laws banning you from replacing a light switch in Australia. At worst you might invalidate your home insurance.

There's a lot of it about, mate. The other day I had an American tell me with a straight face that we can get jail time for flying a Union Flag here in Blighty - I guess there's a big industry for convincing people that everywhere else is a hellhole over there.

Re: Right to root access

#350

Post by chainingsolid »

regnull wrote: post #216
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…

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'd argue the general population doesn't even know this trade off exists (not helped by the pros being advertised to users and the cons purposely not mentioned). Even then the minority (us) shouldn't be stopped from doing what we want with our stuff just so some company can make more money.
Post reply on HN