4 ms·

Are you missing an /s or are you saying that it shouldn't be done because it would enable e.g. use of radio hardware that goes against radio regulation? If you

by jolmg 5y ago

Are you missing an /s or are you saying that it shouldn't be done because it would enable e.g. use of radio hardware that goes against radio regulation? If you're really expressing concern, what do you think of e.g. modem modules for regular computers or SDR hardware?

bluGill 5y ago
> Are you missing an /s or are you saying that it shouldn't be done because it would enable e.g. use of radio hardware that goes against radio regulation Great question. I'm intentionally not answering it because I am not sure what I think. There are valid points on both sides. In part what I think depends on how evil evil people get.
- jolmg 5y ago
  AFAIK, anything phones can do on a hardware level can be done on more open platforms. What could unlocking phones enable evil people to do? What's one of these valid points of the other side?
  - TylerE 5y ago
    Phones are ubiquitous. A phone sitting on a desk is invisible, in a way a random enclosure with a fire wires sticking out of it isn’t.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
      On the other hand, a Pi/ESP32/whatever shoved into a plastic case instantly becomes almost as inconspicuous once again.
      - tehbeard 5y ago
        A WiFi pineapple in a backpack is pretty innocuous
      - beerandt 5y ago
        Or run it on an actual wifi router or usb stick in plain sight.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - sunshineforever 5y ago
    Im imagining kids watching "turn youe phone into a jammer prank your friends" videos... I still support full freedom though. The problem can be handled via prosecution of offenders.
- jfk13 5y ago
  However evil you expect people to be, someone will exceed it. That's why we can't have nice things.
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
No, even if this is not the optimal response to the issue it's at least a popular concern to cite. Our ubiquitous radio devices only work because the invisible commons that is the radio spectrum noise floor is aggressively and totally managed. Intentional emitters can only be sold after testing to ensure that their output is within regulated power levels and frequencies. It is trivial for an end user with a high-power transmit-capable SDR or amateur radio to unintentionally, unknowingly, and invisibly pollute this resource, denying nearby devices (scaled to your transmit power and depending on the frequency/bandwidth) the ability to communicate. This could be some noise on your neighbor's FM car radio, or it could be the communicators used by emergency services. Honestly, I think radio spectrum management is one of the greatest success stories of the 20th century - if air or water pollution were as effectively regulated the world would be a very different place! To be clear, I don't think that smartphones with unlockable bootloaders, likely reusing the stock radio binary blob, are actually going to bring about the apocalypse and set us back to the telegraph era. There was a process where Apple or Samsung or whoever brought that device with their bootloader to an expensive laboratory to get their CE mark, and that process proved that combination of hardware and software to be compliant with regulations. That process may have involved modifying some hardware filters and EMI shields, and almost certainly involved adjusting parameters in radio firmware/software, which are subsequently fixed for the lifetime of the product. If you give end users the ability to modify these parameters, you're inviting them to break the law. While enforcement is currently highly effective by requiring this certification process for OEMs, it wouldn't scale if you give everyone the ability to modify their certified emitters. You at least have to consider the possibility that someone could create a "High Power Radio" app or OS that would make smartphones running it have higher-power, faster access to cell towers and cause nearby devices to lose connection; no one wants that outcome. Personally, I think the harm caused by preventing this through locked bootloaders and disposable smartphones is a tragedy. However, I don't know what a comparably effective alternative would look like, and the current state of affairs has both inertia and the backing of major institutions with strong conflicts of interest, and will continue to be very hard to advocate against.
- jolmg 5y ago
  > However, I don't know what a comparably effective alternative would look like I don't know what the current state of affairs is with regards to radio modem firmware, but I would think that if radio-controlling software should be certified (as following regulation), that should be limited to the firmware, and the modem should only accept firmware updates cryptographically signed by the manufacturer (and possibly the regulator). The firmware should provide an interface that only permits legal use through technical means. IOW, regulation should be limited to the hardware module and the software running inside it. It shouldn't be possible for software residing on any other part of the device to run afoul. If that's impossible for some reason (which I don't think it should be), then I would argue that other alternatives like focusing on prosecuting violations (like the app and OS you mentioned) or modifying the regulations so they can be contained within the firmware while still meeting goals should come before any idea of locking down whole devices for the regulation of a specific module. Also, > You at least have to consider the possibility that someone could create a "High Power Radio" app or OS that would ... If that's possible then, it's possible now. I mean, you don't even have to consider phones. Bootloaders and OSes in regular computers are open source and unlocked. If that's a problem that can arise from unlocked devices, then it already would have been a problem since long ago. Additionally, the discussion was not whether there should be unlocked devices, which there already are. The discussion was whether locking should be illegal.

by jolmg 5y ago

bluGill 5y ago

> Are you missing an /s or are you saying that it shouldn't be done because it would enable e.g. use of radio hardware that goes against radio regulation Great question. I'm intentionally not answering it because I am not sure what I think. There are valid points on both sides. In part what I think depends on how evil evil people get.

jolmg 5y ago
AFAIK, anything phones can do on a hardware level can be done on more open platforms. What could unlocking phones enable evil people to do? What's one of these valid points of the other side?
- TylerE 5y ago
  Phones are ubiquitous. A phone sitting on a desk is invisible, in a way a random enclosure with a fire wires sticking out of it isn’t.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    On the other hand, a Pi/ESP32/whatever shoved into a plastic case instantly becomes almost as inconspicuous once again.
    - tehbeard 5y ago
      A WiFi pineapple in a backpack is pretty innocuous
    - beerandt 5y ago
      Or run it on an actual wifi router or usb stick in plain sight.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- sunshineforever 5y ago
  Im imagining kids watching "turn youe phone into a jammer prank your friends" videos... I still support full freedom though. The problem can be handled via prosecution of offenders.
jfk13 5y ago
However evil you expect people to be, someone will exceed it. That's why we can't have nice things.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago

No, even if this is not the optimal response to the issue it's at least a popular concern to cite. Our ubiquitous radio devices only work because the invisible commons that is the radio spectrum noise floor is aggressively and totally managed. Intentional emitters can only be sold after testing to ensure that their output is within regulated power levels and frequencies. It is trivial for an end user with a high-power transmit-capable SDR or amateur radio to unintentionally, unknowingly, and invisibly pollute this resource, denying nearby devices (scaled to your transmit power and depending on the frequency/bandwidth) the ability to communicate. This could be some noise on your neighbor's FM car radio, or it could be the communicators used by emergency services. Honestly, I think radio spectrum management is one of the greatest success stories of the 20th century - if air or water pollution were as effectively regulated the world would be a very different place! To be clear, I don't think that smartphones with unlockable bootloaders, likely reusing the stock radio binary blob, are actually going to bring about the apocalypse and set us back to the telegraph era. There was a process where Apple or Samsung or whoever brought that device with their bootloader to an expensive laboratory to get their CE mark, and that process proved that combination of hardware and software to be compliant with regulations. That process may have involved modifying some hardware filters and EMI shields, and almost certainly involved adjusting parameters in radio firmware/software, which are subsequently fixed for the lifetime of the product. If you give end users the ability to modify these parameters, you're inviting them to break the law. While enforcement is currently highly effective by requiring this certification process for OEMs, it wouldn't scale if you give everyone the ability to modify their certified emitters. You at least have to consider the possibility that someone could create a "High Power Radio" app or OS that would make smartphones running it have higher-power, faster access to cell towers and cause nearby devices to lose connection; no one wants that outcome. Personally, I think the harm caused by preventing this through locked bootloaders and disposable smartphones is a tragedy. However, I don't know what a comparably effective alternative would look like, and the current state of affairs has both inertia and the backing of major institutions with strong conflicts of interest, and will continue to be very hard to advocate against.

jolmg 5y ago
> However, I don't know what a comparably effective alternative would look like I don't know what the current state of affairs is with regards to radio modem firmware, but I would think that if radio-controlling software should be certified (as following regulation), that should be limited to the firmware, and the modem should only accept firmware updates cryptographically signed by the manufacturer (and possibly the regulator). The firmware should provide an interface that only permits legal use through technical means. IOW, regulation should be limited to the hardware module and the software running inside it. It shouldn't be possible for software residing on any other part of the device to run afoul. If that's impossible for some reason (which I don't think it should be), then I would argue that other alternatives like focusing on prosecuting violations (like the app and OS you mentioned) or modifying the regulations so they can be contained within the firmware while still meeting goals should come before any idea of locking down whole devices for the regulation of a specific module. Also, > You at least have to consider the possibility that someone could create a "High Power Radio" app or OS that would ... If that's possible then, it's possible now. I mean, you don't even have to consider phones. Bootloaders and OSes in regular computers are open source and unlocked. If that's a problem that can arise from unlocked devices, then it already would have been a problem since long ago. Additionally, the discussion was not whether there should be unlocked devices, which there already are. The discussion was whether locking should be illegal.