> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright.
Manufacturers will then claim that people don't own devices, merely a perpetual license to use it.
Right to root access
11–20 of 428 posts
Re: Right to root access
#12Author seems to want 'hardware-level locks' regulated, i.e., allow the government to get into your encrypted devices.
That is absolutely not what the author is saying here, just that users should have the ability to install their own software on their own hardware, and that locked bootloaders and the like should not be allowed.
I want to install my own software on my smartphone. However, I don't want others with physical access to be able to do this... here we hit a problem, because if the device allows extracting the data, bruteforce becomes feasible..
Also I don't want others to be able to use my phone after stealing it.. here FRP lock helps me but in order for it to work it must also limit how I can use the phone.
I wish we stopped falling for this technical trap and finally focus on the substance - hardware/software companies get away with anti-user features that run on the user's device. This shouldn't be allowed.
I don't need an unlocked bootloader, I just don't want the preinstalled Google spyware. Google should not be allowed to hold my device hostage like this.
Re: Right to root access
#13> Root access refers to the highest level of privileges a user can be granted to a computer system. This is no longer true. You might have root access on your smartphone, but you still don't have access to the TEE (on ARM this is implemented using the "TrustZone" "feature"). Also, AVF is coming to Android, and protected VMs won't work with unlocked bootloader.. so expect the situation to deteriorate further once manu…
The TEE is where both the device encryption keys (not DRM) and Widevine keys (DRM) are stored..
So basically a TDM?
Re: Right to root access
#14For some, the absolute locked down-ness is a selling point. Why should those who want to buy something that can't be messed with not be able to? If you don't want to buy something you can't install whatever you want onto, don't buy it. 100% the ability or inability to modify the firmware of a device should be disclosed, but if it's disclosed the seller should be able to set the policy to whatever they want
This is an extremely weak argument, and I'd like to stop seeing it perpetuated. If you don't want an unlocked bootloader, just don't unlock your bootloader. Why should we remove the ability to unlock the bootloader entirely just because some people don't want to use it?
Because the fact that it can't be unlocked makes me reasonably reassured that I can trust the software running on it comes from the vendor of the device
It's the same reason I don't want "the good guys" to have decryption keys to my messaging service, because even if I did trust the FBI, the fact that there is a backdoor at all means it could be exploited by someone I don't trust
Again, if you don't want to use a device that has a locked bootloader, don't buy it. I fail to see how this business model should be legally foreclosed upon. You'll always have the option to buy a device that can be unlocked, someone will always sell such a device. But if you can't lock them, then I can't buy one even if I want to
Re: Right to root access
#15> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright. Manufacturers will then claim that people don't own devices, merely a perpetual license to use it.
... plus the license to smash those devices with a hammer :)
Re: Right to root access
#16I used to think this way but then I saw how non-techy people use their devices.
Something like this would inevitably be abused and result in wave of malware so massive that it would render the internet too hostile for all but the most careful, knowledgable and paranoid users.
Re: Right to root access
#17> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright. Manufacturers will then claim that people don't own devices, merely a perpetual license to use it.
That's a slippery slope, because they list devices as sold, not as rented. So they can't claim that. Some still try, especially using copyright on software on the devices as leverage.
Re: Right to root access
#18For some, the absolute locked down-ness is a selling point. Why should those who want to buy something that can't be messed with not be able to? If you don't want to buy something you can't install whatever you want onto, don't buy it. 100% the ability or inability to modify the firmware of a device should be disclosed, but if it's disclosed the seller should be able to set the policy to whatever they want
This is an extremely weak argument, and I'd like to stop seeing it perpetuated. If you don't want an unlocked bootloader, just don't unlock your bootloader. Why should we remove the ability to unlock the bootloader entirely just because some people don't want to use it?
> 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 form of curation from the manufacturer. On the other hand, there are plenty of software companies who do shitty things when given absolute freedom over what to do in a user's device (tracking / spying / etc) and I welcome buying a device where the manufacturer helps me fight some of that.
So I can absolutely see both arguments. And I think both types can coexist. 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.
Re: Right to root access
#19I used to think this way but then I saw how non-techy people use their devices. Something like this would inevitably be abused and result in wave of malware so massive that it would render the internet too hostile for all but the most careful, knowledgable and paranoid users.
"everyone is too stupid to be trusted with general purpose computers" is a pretty grim position to hold
Re: Right to root access
#20I used to think this way but then I saw how non-techy people use their devices. Something like this would inevitably be abused and result in wave of malware so massive that it would render the internet too hostile for all but the most careful, knowledgable and paranoid users.
As the author mentions, desktop computers have always been (mostly) unlocked. This comment is just over the top scaremongering.