4 ms·

Pixel's are locked down a very tiny bit, and I don't think this is some kind of dystopian over-reach with security as an excuse. For all the security listed in

Pixel's are locked down a very tiny bit, and I don't think this is some kind of dystopian over-reach with security as an excuse. For all the security listed in this thread the whole "I must connect to the internet once" problem is a very fair tradeoff from the user's perspective.

pessimizer 4y ago
> Pixel's are locked down a very tiny bit Other people might instead say "Pixels are locked down." > I don't think this is some kind of dystopian over-reach with security as an excuse. Why? > "I must connect to the internet once" problem is a very fair tradeoff from the user's perspective. Speak for yourself.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  > Speak for yourself. I am, that's what a "comment" is. And the second (I dont think...) follows from the first (very tiny bit). I'd just be repeating myself. This is opinion-based. We just disagree, that's fine.
- williamDafoe 4y ago
  In return for this feature a class of lower income users are able to buy hundreds of millions of phones and pay for them over an extended period using monthly payments on their phone account. This is the trade-off Google makes.
Bran_son 4y ago
> "I must connect to the internet once" problem is a very fair tradeoff Very fair. All Google requires is this: a simple offering of earth and water. A token of submission to its will.
ouid 4y ago
The internet is not a thing you connect to, what you must actually do is register your intent to disable the bootloader with an adversarially controlled server, and that server must respond with a yes.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  If the root comment is to be believed, this (connecting via the internet to Google's servers), is required to provide additional security. I'm just taking that as true and deciding that connecting to the provider of my phone's hardware and software _once_ as a purchaser of their hardware, is fine for me. I also imagine it's not too burdensome for others. Scenarios in which that's not possible are hypothetical (disaster, totalitarian takeover, alien invasion, sudden policy change), and I'm fine calculating that into the risk calculus and deciding that, yep I don't mind driving home and unlocking it the same day I bought it and praying nothing changes in their policy during the drive. That's basically what I did. We can disagree on this, but it has worked out OK so far.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Zak 4y ago
One of the problems with this is that Google can change the behavior at any time. We have no shortage of examples of big tech companies changing something that's valuable to users because it no longer aligned with their business goals.
yellowapple 4y ago
And what happens when that server on the Internet stops authorizing bootloader unlocks, or disappears entirely?
- williamDafoe 4y ago
  This would only be a problem not when you first buy the phone but only if you buy a very very old used phone that has never had the OS replaced and google has exited the phone business and if you wanted to replace the OS.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  Unlock it just after you buy it.

pessimizer 4y ago

> Pixel's are locked down a very tiny bit Other people might instead say "Pixels are locked down." > I don't think this is some kind of dystopian over-reach with security as an excuse. Why? > "I must connect to the internet once" problem is a very fair tradeoff from the user's perspective. Speak for yourself.

jvanderbot 4y ago
> Speak for yourself. I am, that's what a "comment" is. And the second (I dont think...) follows from the first (very tiny bit). I'd just be repeating myself. This is opinion-based. We just disagree, that's fine.
williamDafoe 4y ago
In return for this feature a class of lower income users are able to buy hundreds of millions of phones and pay for them over an extended period using monthly payments on their phone account. This is the trade-off Google makes.

Bran_son 4y ago

> "I must connect to the internet once" problem is a very fair tradeoff Very fair. All Google requires is this: a simple offering of earth and water. A token of submission to its will.

ouid 4y ago

The internet is not a thing you connect to, what you must actually do is register your intent to disable the bootloader with an adversarially controlled server, and that server must respond with a yes.

jvanderbot 4y ago
If the root comment is to be believed, this (connecting via the internet to Google's servers), is required to provide additional security. I'm just taking that as true and deciding that connecting to the provider of my phone's hardware and software _once_ as a purchaser of their hardware, is fine for me. I also imagine it's not too burdensome for others. Scenarios in which that's not possible are hypothetical (disaster, totalitarian takeover, alien invasion, sudden policy change), and I'm fine calculating that into the risk calculus and deciding that, yep I don't mind driving home and unlocking it the same day I bought it and praying nothing changes in their policy during the drive. That's basically what I did. We can disagree on this, but it has worked out OK so far.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Zak 4y ago

One of the problems with this is that Google can change the behavior at any time. We have no shortage of examples of big tech companies changing something that's valuable to users because it no longer aligned with their business goals.

yellowapple 4y ago

And what happens when that server on the Internet stops authorizing bootloader unlocks, or disappears entirely?

williamDafoe 4y ago
This would only be a problem not when you first buy the phone but only if you buy a very very old used phone that has never had the OS replaced and google has exited the phone business and if you wanted to replace the OS.
jvanderbot 4y ago
Unlock it just after you buy it.