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

371–380 of 428 posts

Re: Right to root access

#371

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Right to root access

#372

Post by kachapopopow »

beefnugs wrote: post #296
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

These are sort of prevented by signing the hardware, you have a module on your computer that creates a web request identifying that this module is present.

Re: Right to root access

#373

Post by rendaw »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #345
dns_snek wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

The balance of power between a company and you, vs you and another person, are vastly different, which IMO makes the issues distinct. Presumably the elderly parents are willingly relinquishing control to someone they trust, and they can always go out and buy their own phone if they don't want that.

Re: Right to root access

#374

Post by eviks »

lapcat wrote: post #285
eviks wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, ok, if you think this is on par with the lockdowns that the commenters support for guns (which I've previously proxied as ~ existing restrictions), then I'm not sure what to say > Why do computers get this special treatment of vendor lockdown, but not any other product? Of course they don't, plenty of other products are treated much more seriously by "us" (supporting lockdowns that limit your own use without sup…

You appear to be conflating two different things: legal mandates and vendor lockdown. There are legal mandates regarding the sale and use of certain products. For example, you have to be a minimum age to buy cigarettes and alcohol, stores in some localities can only sell alcohol during certain hours, bars have to close at a certain time, you can't drive drunk, you must wear a seatbelt, you can't exceed the speed limi…

A cigarette will not allow anyone to smoke it if the vendor locked down sales and can't sell it to you, so you don't have it. This is a much more serious restriction of consumer freedoms than if anyone can buy and use, but can't smoke when drunk and in bed (fire safety) due to some other lockdown mechanism built into the cigarette itself. More people are affected, and the effect of full exclusion is stronger even though the "lock" mechanism is built differently

So here is your mistake when you only accept something almost literally identical to computer lockdown (same with your fridge example), but brushing off more serious usage "lockdowns" that don't exist with computers

> The equivalent would be if you could only use specific brands of replacement chains, blades, tires, or bullets that are approved by the manufacturer, for which the manufacturer gets a cut of the sales of those replacements."

Yes, this exists and is common in complex mechanical things, e.g., you lose warranty if you use unapproved parts, or for some parts there is actually not even an alternative, so manufacture is the only one getting a cut

So again, there is nothing unique or "most dangerous" about computers in either reality or people's prescriptions

Although since your argument isn't about real restrictions, but about what commenters support, you'd need to ask them which of these existing restrictions they support vs computers

Re: Right to root access

#375

Post by konaraddi »

Reminds me of how certain macOS APIs are gated behind the paid apple developer program so you can’t, for example, write a macOS app using Network Extensions on your own Mac until you join the Apple developer program (100USD/year in the US). I understand why they do it but it does feel weird that I can’t write certain code for my own Mac unless I pay for a subscription (on top of already having paid for the Mac).

Re: Right to root access

#376

Post by error503 »

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…

It's an old anecdote, but years ago Samsung refused a warranty claim for a _failed USB port_ that would no longer charge the phone _because I had rooted it_ and the fuses were burnt. I think this was unreasonable of them, but it's not like I had any recourse. If vendors were really worried about this aspect, they would/could implement such draconian policies.

Re: Right to root access

#377

Post by pjmlp »

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…

And there are plenty of laws in many countries on how to use them, seatbelts, helmets, chain gloves, plastic cover, minimum age, access exam,...

Failure to obey them, might get jail time on those countries if caught disobeying, or an hefty fine, not counting what misuse might bring in, regardless of the country.

Re: Right to root access

#378

Post by pjmlp »

raxxor wrote: post #160
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…

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…

I guess you want the equivalent of asking an adult friend to buy booze for a party.

Re: Right to root access

#379

Post by lbschenkel »

surajrmal wrote: post #354
grishka wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with bootloader unlocking on modern Android devices is that they have a hypervisor that you don't get to ever unlock but that will snitch on you and make some apps, like some banking ones, refuse to work because the "integrity" of your device could not be verified. In other words, because these apps can no longer be certain they are able to hide data from you the device owner. Magisk exists, yes, but it's…

If software doesn't want to run on your hardware because it can't make sure you're not tampering with it, why is it wrong for doing so? You're not necessarily entitled to the ability to run the software right? I understand the implications this has on ones ability to create custom operating systems is troubling (eg this could destroy desktop Linux), but at the end of the day I guess it is just a choice the developer…

Because in some countries you must run some government sanctioned apps that require a "blessed" device, or you are a de facto non-citizen?

If Americans had anything like BankID or MitID which would refuse to run on their devices and they would be prevented from paying a bill, transferring money, buying tickets, or reading their mail they would go apeshit in 5 seconds.

Some apps are no longer optional in the world we are living in.

Re: Right to root access

#380

Post by throw_me_uwu »

The preference has been stated thousands of times. There's nothing to debate. They won't give you root and power. The only question is what you will do to change things:

Do you:

- Buy open devices?

- Sponsor development of open devices?

- Start open device companies?

- Develop open software that competes with walled gardens in quality and ease of use?

- Sponsor open software?

- Use open software?

- Engage in lobbying?

- Drop exploits (that would be worth a pile of gold) to let people jailbreak devices?

- ...

- Fake-care or real-care?

Post reply on HN