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

151–160 of 428 posts

Re: Right to root access

#151

Post by _Algernon_ »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #40
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…

This is a very popular HN opinion; but not a very popular real world opinion. The average customer wants a device that works consistently, every day, that is easy to use, with a collection of 3rd party apps who won’t steal their life savings. Windows failed to deliver this; the average customer never downloads an Exe from a newer publisher without terror. The average consumer is literally dozens of times more likely…

Sounds a lot like "We don't need free speech because I have nothing to say".

Just because you don't need or want it, doesn't mean it's not an important right to protect. Considering the influence of computers these days, the right of general purpose computing is probably at least as important as the right to free speech.

Re: Right to root access

#152

Post by user_7832 »

jmb99 wrote: post #140
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…

I agree. The gist of the main arguments I see in this thread are that average people should be trusted to choose whether or not they will unlock their device. Yet, a group of (presumably) some of the most technically savvy people on the internet can’t figure out how to buy open products? If you don’t want a locked-down computer, don’t buy a Mac. Clearly, many, many people do, so why should they have that taken away f…

It is possible for something to still be very good despite restrictions (e.g. m series MacBooks). It’s also reasonable to “complain” if the device you purchased isn’t truly in “your” control (eg forced OTA updates).

Also a minor nit: > Yet, a group of (presumably) some of the most technically savvy people on the internet can’t figure out how to buy open products?

This isn’t necessarily fair. When I bought my iPad (my first apple device) I could try it at an Apple store where there’s only so much you can realise. How are the speakers? Is the screen bright? How quickly does YouTube/websites open?

What I did not realise until much later was that even something as “basic” as downloading a couple of MP3 and playing them is bizarrely hard on iOS. Or that alarms have no option to gently rise, and are designed to give you a heart attack. Or that you can’t even set your own song/music as an alarm (unless you’ve paid apple money for their music services, very conveniently).

Would I have still bought an iPad if I knew all these? Maybe. But maybe I’d have gotten a basic model. Or maybe I’d just use an android tablet - the details are irrelevant here. But there’s a lot of things about an OS that are obscure.

Re: Right to root access

#153

Post by alias_neo »

stavros wrote: post #54
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not the ability to unlock your phone. The problem is that 90% of people unlocking their phones will either be for piracy (against the company’s interests), or against the customer's own interests (stalkerware, data extraction, sale of stolen devices). There is a reason malware is over 50 times as prevalent on Android.

Why do I give a shit about the company? I bought the phone, it's mine, I should be able to unlock it. If I catch malware, I'm an adult and I'll live with my choices. > There is a reason malware is over 50 times as prevalent on Android. What's the reason for that bogus-sounding statistic?

Let's say for a second it was accurate (It's probably not), perhaps it's because Android has a far higher market share globally, and it's much cheaper and easier to get started writing apps (or malware) for Android than say iOS.

You also don't need to buy a single device from Google to get started. You can take the PC you're at and get started right away, and publish that app (or malware) without spending a penny (though I don't recall whether they still charge that nominal fee to get a developer account).

Saying 90% of people root for piracy is hilarious, I rooted every Android device I owned until the last one or two, and I've never pirated anything, why did I root? Mainly for customisation and host-based ad-blocking.

I can't understand the thought process of these people who think the things you own should be locked down to protect you.

We should stop selling screwdrivers too in case someone's granny tries to open their toaster and electrocutes themselves, after all, a screwdriver is the pre-tech root access to all things electrical and electronic. I suspect those same people who argue in favour of locking these devices down would also say "don't by silly, my granny wouldn't open her toaster with a screwdriver, because she's not an engineer".

Re: Right to root access

#154

Post by stavros »

mixdup wrote: post #88
stavros wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's also about adversaries that may have physical access to your device and can provide that consent. No matter how convoluted you make the rube goldberg machine to bypass the cryptography, if there's a way to bypass it it will be bypassed You claimed that an adversary with physical access to your device can compromise your unlockable phone, but presumably this won't happen with a phone that can't be unlocked. Is…

I was talking about a device with an unlockable bootloader, not one that cannot be unlocked Wanting an uncompromisable bootloader is about more than just protection against malware that might modify the software on the device, it's about protecting a phone that can be unlocked from having the software modified by someone with the ability to provide the consent that the end-user would normally give. For example when I…

If they unlock the bootloader, the phone will wipe itself, that's what most phones nowadays do.

Re: Right to root access

#155

Post by stavros »

jmb99 wrote: post #136
stavros wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So because it would no longer be our computer, we should buy one that's not ours from the start?

Would you prefer for your technologically illiterate relatives (think grandparents/etc getting their first computing device): - A computer that is compromised by malware - A computer that doesn’t permit the user to install malware, and as a consequence, possibly alternative operating systems Your phrasing implies that “it would no longer be our computer” is equivalent to “one that’s not ours from the start.” As far a…

Why are those my only two options? A computer that's already infected or one I don't own?

Re: Right to root access

#156

Post by stavros »

alias_neo wrote: post #153
stavros wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do I give a shit about the company? I bought the phone, it's mine, I should be able to unlock it. If I catch malware, I'm an adult and I'll live with my choices. > There is a reason malware is over 50 times as prevalent on Android. What's the reason for that bogus-sounding statistic?

Let's say for a second it was accurate (It's probably not), perhaps it's because Android has a far higher market share globally, and it's much cheaper and easier to get started writing apps (or malware) for Android than say iOS. You also don't need to buy a single device from Google to get started. You can take the PC you're at and get started right away, and publish that app (or malware) without spending a penny (th…

Yeah, agreed. This "I don't want to own my things because I want Big Brother to protect me" attitude is really frustrating, especially when you can have protection without Google holding all the keys. GrapheneOS isn't less secure than stock Android.

Re: Right to root access

#157

Post by anfilt »

I have talked about this before. The issue goes further in my opinion and starts to effect property rights themselves. In particular locked down hardware starts to effect the owners right of exclusion. The right of exclusion loosely is the right include or exclude something from/usesing some property. When the hardware is locked down the owner can know longer solely make those decisions. Instead in the instance of like an iDevice Apple makes those choices instead of the owner by only allowed code they have signed or signatures they allow.

An other post I have posted regarding this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39349288

Re: Right to root access

#158

Post by iggldiggl »

do_not_redeem wrote: post #61
mixdup wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about malware you might accidentally download, it's also about adversaries that may have physical access to your device and can provide that consent No matter how convoluted you make the rube goldberg machine to bypass the cryptography, if there's a way to bypass it it will be bypassed

Every device I've ever unlocked warns you on boot that it's unlocked. So if that's your threat model, just reboot the phone after the maid hands it back to you and see if you get a scary warning.

At least historically, that wasn't always fool-proof :-) – I know at least some Motorolas from around ten years ago where the bootloader warning was simply an alternative boot animation, so you could suppress that message by overwriting the "bootloader unlocked" animation with the regular boot animation.

Re: Right to root access

#159

Post by blueflow »

dusted wrote: post #120

> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright. While I agree, I think even legislation will not fix this, because what is a computing device, and who decides what is and what is not ? I'm sure apple will argue that nothing they sell should be considered computing devices. While the hacker will consider anything they can trick int…

German here - I do believe this legislation already exists - the owner of a thing has full rights of disposal and no other entity is allowed to interfere (except for the state itself). And this is part of the common property rights. afaik the property rights in the US are even stronger.

But i wonder, why these rights do not seem to be enforced on computing devices. Either everyone is failing to assert their property rights or i am in the wrong here. Probably the latter.

Re: Right to root access

#160

Post by raxxor »

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 from consumer devices offering the next shitty app that hopefully always stays optional.

We even have dysfunctional laws that require banking apps to only run on these shitty systems. In my opinion, these errors need a quick correction.

Also, the most cases of scam still work as they did before and exfiltrating information, e.g. tracking and "diagnostic data" by bad operating systems are an additional security problem.

Post reply on HN