23 ms·

Right to root access

487 points by medhir 2y ago

p_ing 2y ago
Author seems to want 'hardware-level locks' regulated, i.e., allow the government to get into your encrypted devices.
- drannex 2y ago
  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.
  - zb3 2y ago
    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.
  - p_ing 2y ago
    Yes, that is exactly what the author is saying, wanting government regulation. For one, the government won't simply say "keep the device open for the end user" (or a "smart" government wouldn't), but even if they did, you've now opened that device to any attacker, law enforcement included.
    - stavros 2y ago
      So because I can sudo on my computer, my computer is open to any attacker? What's wrong with this comments section? Has anyone here used a computer before?
      - p_ing 2y ago
        What does the operating system have to do with an attacker? What's wrong with this comments section? Has anyone seen Israeli offline attacks of iPhones before?
        stavros 2y ago
        The iPhones that famously won't let you unlock their bootloader? Yes we have, and I don't think that's making the argument you think it's making.
zb3 2y ago
> 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 manufacturers make use of pVMs..
- zb3 2y ago
  The TEE is where both the device encryption keys (not DRM) and Widevine keys (DRM) are stored..
  - TechDebtDevin 2y ago
    So basically a TDM?
    - geraldhh 2y ago
      basically a hardwired authenticator dongle that the user cannot touch
- causality0 2y ago
  There's not nearly enough awareness of this. Even with root access, on modern Android you have to set up a virtual USB connection just to get at the files in the data folders of android apps if you want to, for example, sync the savegames between your mobile emulators and your desktop emulators. It's fucking disgusting. With every new edition they shave off a little more user agency.
  - stavros 2y ago
    What do you mean "a virtual USB connection"? With root access I can see all the files on my Android phone.
    - 2y ago
mixdup 2y ago
For 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
- stavros 2y ago
  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?
  - mixdup 2y ago
    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
    - Magnusmaster 2y ago
      Phones with unlockable bootloaders aren't going to be sold for much longer just like dumb TVs aren't sold anymore. There's just too much profit to be earned by corporations locking devices, plus banks and governments want to lock down phones. And once they lock down phones they'll go for desktops as well.
      - mixdup 2y ago
puppycodes 2y ago
not sure if your in the US, but we can't even get net neutrality. Unfortuantely the likelyhood of this is a hell freezing over situation. I would start with, laws should be logical and informed and go from there... the number of prerequisite changes required to come mildly close to this is unreal. Including but not limited too: copyright law, insurance law, patents, contract law, federal vs state law, an agency competent enough to enforce this, lobby from the most powerful companies in the world, and more. In dream land I support you though.
- qmr 2y ago
  California is typically pro consumer, tenant, employee. If it could be passed in California it would trickle down elsewhere. e.g. California emissions mandates leading to less emissions in the entire country because it makes more sense at scale to build 1 SKU.
  - puppycodes 2y ago
    I agree states can more quickly change laws, but thats a far cry from what's proposed here. Can you imagine enforcement of such a law? Can you imagine a state employee checking for root access? You break at least five California laws an hour there just walking around as the beauracratic machine consumes any reasonable enforcement. This would be considered absolutely niche and no politician would likely care because it wont get them reelected. Call me cynical I guess but our track record of change for the better is pretty poor in this arena. In my dream we abolish copyright all together but alas we live in a profit oriented society not a knowledge oriented one.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    Let's not have more of a single state passing de facto laws for the entire country, please. You're right that this happens, but it's an awful thing that we need to fight, not promote more of.
theandrewbailey 2y ago
> 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.
- shmerl 2y ago
  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.
  - jmb99 2y ago
    More than likely, they’ll instead just start actually renting you the products. See Apple’s 2-year rental program for a (relatively) non-predatory implementation, or NZXT’s for a very predatory implementation.
    - shmerl 2y ago
      It's one thing if they rent for cheaper and sell for more. But if they'll only rent it will be messed up.
- zb3 2y ago
  ... plus the license to smash those devices with a hammer :)
- lapcat 2y ago
  > Manufacturers will then claim that people don't own devices, merely a perpetual license to use it. It would be refreshing for them to be honest about their monetary greed instead of telling false stories about "security" and what's "good for users".
lrvick 2y ago
I detest Google, but I do think they made the right call with Android devices and Chromebooks. You can unlock either as long as you are willing to totally wipe the device first and start over as a new device under a new security context. This removes the risk of this being abused to compromise the data of stolen devices or evil maid attacks unless a user that knows what they are doing has explicitly opted themselves into that risk.
- alex7734 2y ago
  This, or even sell "dev units" with the bootloader unlocked so that you explicitly have to accept the risk before purchasing the device. The problem though is that rooting by itself is not that useful when a lot of apps use remote attestation to deny you service if you're rooted. We don't just need root access, we need undetectable root access.
  - cwalv 2y ago
    > We don't just need root access, we need undetectable root access. At some point the argument morphs from 'I should be able to do whatever I want with my device' to 'I should be able to access your service/device with whatever I want'. The fact that Google allows this shows that 1. Apple could do it with zero security impact on anyone who doesn't opt in 2. They could keep any service-based profit source intact But they still would never do it. Because it's not only service based profit they want to protect. They want to restrict customers from running competitor's software on their hardware, to ensure they get their cut.
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      > At some point the argument morphs from 'I should be able to do whatever I want with my device' to 'I should be able to access your service/device with whatever I want'. I'm not demanding to be able to log in to your service/device and replace IIS with Apache on it. I'm just demanding to be able to access it as a normal user with Firefox instead of Chrome.
emmelaich 2y ago
I 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.
- Palomides 2y ago
  "everyone is too stupid to be trusted with general purpose computers" is a pretty grim position to hold
  - emmelaich 2y ago
    You left out the vital clause. "... if they have total unfettered control". Also, not everyone. Obviously. It's a position I came to rather regretfully and sadly.
    - LocalH 2y ago
      How do you propose we limit access to general-purpose computing without doing so across the board for everyone? How would you block bad actors from general-purpose computing? Require licensing to use development tools, and track what they're used for so you can react when someone crosses that "line"? Congratulations, you've just destroyed computing.
      - jmb99 2y ago
        While obviously not perfect, what we have today is > limit[ing] access to general-purpose computing without doing so across the board for everyone I imagine the vast majority of people on this site run (or at least have used) Linux, *BSD, etc. on a daily basis. No average person is going to set up Arch on their main PC, but lots of us do. Your average person enjoys their locked-down Samsungs and iPhones, while we enjoy unlocked problem-ridden (but personally solvable) Linux environments. Would it be better if every person who could buy an iPhone was sufficiently technically competent to not install malware on their easily-rootable phone? Yes. But that’s not the world we live in. Maybe I’m succumbing to the “First They Came...” mindset, but until I can’t run Linux on a PC I’ve built with components of my choosing, I don’t really care if my phone is a semi-closed semi-black box. I used to enjoy jailbreaking iOS devices, but eventually decided I’m happy with my phone just being a phone. If I want to tinker, I’ve got a rack full of servers and 3 different workstations I have the freedom to break whenever I want. It’s nice to have a phone that can just do phone things 100% of the time - I haven’t had an iOS system crash (or any bug preventing use) in about 5 years, which was the last time I had a jailbroken phone.
jazzyjackson 2y ago
If locking the bootloader and comparing signatures against keys burned into a secure enclave allow Apple to make certain security guarantees that helps them sell products, I'm all for their freedom to do so. Why doesn't OP merely champion competition, instead of encouraging regulation of what software others can write, what hardware others can ship? I too am afraid of general purpose computing going by the wayside, and I have the Precursor phone and Raptor Talos PowerPC machines on my wishlist, just as soon as I wrap my head around secure boot chains in general before having to implement one myself. But niche hardware is expensive to produce, so we're likely left with what AMD, Intel and Apple provides us. I guess one quirk that IMO is fair to criticize is that it's not necessarily consumers who are demanding to be locked out of their administrator privileges (the average computer user is of course not aware of the distinction of signed vs unsigned binaries), so I don't know where the pressure for secure enclaves really comes from. Is it the data centers buying thousands of chips that don't want to be pwned? government customers who refuse to buy a single die if they can't verify the bootloader? Or just patriotic engineers sensitive to a cybersecurity regime that demands we keep our guard up against enemies, foreign and domestic?
- lapcat 2y ago
  > Why doesn't OP merely champion competition, instead of encouraging regulation of what software others can write, what hardware others can ship? This is false dichotomy. Why not both? We need individual consumer rights, and we also need healthy market competition.
- hamandcheese 2y ago
  > so I don't know where the pressure for secure enclaves really comes from. The pressure comes from shareholders. User control means users can use their device in a way that benefits them, e.g. blocking invasive tracking. This benefit provides zero or negative shareholder value.
- jmb99 2y ago
  > so I don't know where the pressure for secure enclaves really comes from. In my experience, security engineers who see them as finally solving the “root of trust” problem. Generally (ime) it’s security engineers/teams that have been pushing for things like ssl/tls, global certificate stores, signed updates of those stores, signed kernels validating those updates. But if you break the kernel (or compromise the bootloader or EFI/BIOS) then it’s all for naught. A secure enclave solves that problem (unless you find a bug in it/its implementation) - your bootloader is validated, which validates your kernel, which validates all the userland components you care about. Security teams rejoice.
lapcat 2y ago
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 these other products are locked down by the vendor. The reason that computers are locked down by the vendors is not that computers are somehow more dangerous than other things we buy. The reason is simply that it's technically possible to lock down computers, and vendors have found that it's massively, MASSIVELY profitable to do so. It's all about protecting their profits, not protecting us. We know that the crApp Store is full of scams that steal literally millions of dollars from consumers, and we know that the computer vendors violate our privacy by phoning home with "analytics" covering everything we do on the devices. This is not intended for our benefit but rather for theirs.
- mixdup 2y ago
  There's a difference between being able to buy something dangerous and being forced to do so
  - lapcat 2y ago
    Forced? I'm not sure I understand. My guess is that you're assuming, wrongly, that vendor locked devices are "safe" and unlocked devices are "unsafe". All computers that are connected to the internet are unsafe in some ways. The most dangerous apps on your computer are the vendor's own built-in web browser and messaging app. Also, the vendor-controlled software stores are unsafe cesspools. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Moreover, the vendors deliberately make it impossible for you to protect yourself. For example, iOS makes it difficult or impossible to inspect the file system directly, and you can't install software such as Little Snitch on iOS that stops 3rd party apps—as well as 1st party apps!—from phoning home. In any case, most computers, including Apple computers, have parental controls and the like, so you can lock down your own device to your heart's content if you don't trust yourself, or you don't trust the family member that you're gifting the device.
stavros 2y ago
Every time this issue comes up, an army of people who've never unlocked a phone comes out of the woodwork to talk about their theoretical fears of malware and piracy and rain falling from the sky if you dare to own your device. If you've never unlocked a phone, please educate yourself on how the process works before opining. It's really not as terrifying as you imagine.
- dmichulke 2y ago
  On the contrary, unlocking the bootloader might also be not as possible as you imagine. Happened twice to me: Once the URL for getting the key did not exist anymore. The other time it was disallowed after some time by the company.
khana 2y ago
[dead]
petesergeant 2y ago
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 sale, you should buy one of those.
- jmb99 2y ago
  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 from them because of someone else’s ideals?
  - user_7832 2y ago
    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.
  - BeFlatXIII 2y ago
jerjerjer 2y ago
Fully agreed. I was thinking of something similar, only I was calling it "Right to execute", similarly to the "Right to repair". I'm buying a general computing device. It's ridiculous I'm artificially limited in using it for the main purpose of making shareholders rich. Ideally I'd add a mandatory toolchain to that. At least a C compiler which should be able to target a device I own.
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  I just call it "Software Freedom", like GNU has since the 80s: > the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you I don't necessarily endorse all of Stallman's philosophy on software. But I think in this point at least he was very prescient.
solatic 2y ago
The way to balance security and freedom is with a hardware switch. By default, keep secure boot etc. But if someone opens the case, takes out the battery, and moves a little switch on the board? Start with a fresh, unprotected context. Because it's a hardware switch, it can't be remotely hacked. An adversary who gets the hardware anyway can get control (are we going to pretend otherwise?). So just do the right thing and make it easier for people to take over their own hardware.
- cube2222 2y ago
  > are we going to pretend otherwise? aren't we in fact pretending otherwise? Right now I believe that stolen iPhones are effectively bricks (barring state-level actors with unpatched zero-days)?
dinozarw 2y ago
The amount of hand-waving in this comments section is truly outstanding. Then again, it shouldn't really surprise me considering how many HN users work for the very companies that profit from vendor lockdown. "You will own nothing and you will be happy!"
zzo38computer 2y ago
> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright. I agree with this, as well as most (or all) of the other stuff mentioned in that article. However, sometimes it might be reasonable to have a switch inside that you must unscrew it (using a commonly available screwdriver, rather than an obscure one) to switch it (and then later be able to switch it back), in order to enable some functions (e.g. to be able to upgrade EEPROM, or to bypass a secure boot loader). If the user puts glitter on it, then this allows the user to detect tampering, while remaining secure and allowing full control.
- nicman23 2y ago
  No. This does not happen with anything else except phones. If you brick a laptop it is a 30 dollar fix on any local shop. The same cannot be said with any locked down device.
- whs 2y ago
  I remember how I flashed my Nintendo DS. In the back of the device there's a sticker over a screwhole. You'll need to poke a screwdriver in there, but inside is not a screw. It's an electrical contact to make the ROM read-write which your screwdriver needs to bridge, and stay bridged while the firmware is flashing (It is harmless if the contact is loss in the process, but I don't know if it would be safe to abort at that point) Pretty hard to convince someone to do that process, yet doable by anyone with a flathead screwdriver. I guess nowadays it become Samsung's e-fuse where if you flash it blow an e-fuse and the status of the fuse is now detectable with software. Then apps can refuse to service people just because the custom firmware fuse was blown.
dusted 2y ago
> 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 into arbitrary code to be one (is your fridge a computing device?) If we go the legal route, I think the only way is to give the right to flash firmware of _ANYTHING_ that has programmable bits, and that's probably not going to fly either because lots of legislation already dictates users should be prohibited and prevented.
- reshlo 2y ago
  > I'm sure apple will argue that nothing they sell should be considered computing devices. “What’s a computer?”
- perlgeek 2y ago
  > 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 ? If there is legislation, it will contain a definition of what is a computing device and what isn't. It will be imperfect, and the edge cases will be contested in courts. Courts deal with blurry boundaries all the time. That's how it always is with legal matters, and doesn't mean we have to demand that anything with a firmware must be flashable.
  - dusted 2y ago
    What I mean is that I think this is the fastest way to end the era of widely-available general-purpose-computing devices that we are currently in (and that is currently ending, but at a glacial speed). It's not that hard to imagine a version of the world where computers as we know them do not exist, but are mere appliances (like tablets and smartphones), and if companies feel threatened that they might be forced to open up their computing devices, they will be quick to make them not fall under the definition. Instead of a smartphone, you will get a "Can telephone and access facebook and instasnap" device with whatever technical cripplement is needed to make it not a computing device and be exempt from the law. And as the general public and justice system is pretty ignorant with regard to technology, it's going to be pretty resource intensive to convince a judge why every gadget around that suddenly identifies as "not a computing device" is in fact on anyway.
cynicalsecurity 2y ago
We should thank all the major copyright holders for that. They are the reason many devices have been crippled. Because for them, the real enemy is the user, - that is you, my dear friend. They assume you to be a criminal by default, you know, like some crazy feminists assume all men are rapists just because they have a penis. Chop your penis off to prove you are not a rapist! Use your device without root access to prove you are not a filthy pirate who is "stealing" money from poor copyright holders who can barely afford women, yaughts and coke they are used to.
jopsen 2y ago
> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright. That's easy to say, but hard to legislate, and impossible to enforce. There is so much firmware around, small binary blobs burned into micro controllers that can't even be updated. Or that isn't intended to be updated. There are probably even dimmable LED bulbs without IoT features that still have a microcontroller. Because a tiny microcontroller is the cheapest way to add logic to anything. I'm not sure it isn't a good idea. Just not sure we grasp the ramifications.
- raxxor 2y ago
  I think a definition would exclude µC, dsps asics, fpga, etc. While most of those have the ability to program themselves, not all programs support such features. And for external programming you need programming devices who would also need physical interfaces where no standard connector exists. But a definition for general purpose computing devices wouldn't be harder than to craft legislation that requires my banking app to run on a certified shitty app environment.
- palata 2y ago
  > and impossible to enforce. You don't have to enforce it for every single manufacturer and every single product. If you enforce it for Apple, Samsung and a couple other big Android brands, you'll get most smartphones. Now whether it is a good idea or not, I don't know. But if you wanted to enforce it, I think it wouldn't be too hard. Banks get a ton of regulations and have to apply them all the time. Surely Apple or Samsung could do that, too.
anfilt 2y ago
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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39349288
- medhir 2y ago
  thanks for sharing. the loss of property rights is an aspect I hadn’t considered… would be great to brainstorm further with an actual lawyer on these topics
  - anfilt 2y ago
    I recommend reading that paper I posted in the other comment. It underscores how important the right of exclusion is.
    - medhir 2y ago
      will do, thank you!
ptman 2y ago
"no user serviceable parts inside"
grishka 2y ago
The problem is larger than that, it's the IT industry's obsession with denying users the ability to evaluate their own risks and take their own responsibility. You do that all the time every day in most other areas of life, but somehow interacting with technology is different. The manufacturer always knows better. Don't want to have a time component to your biometric authentication because you know your risks? Too bad. Google and Apple know better. Password is required to unlock Touch ID.
- markus_zhang 2y ago
  I doubt any Apple engineer is very against the idea that an iPad user roots it. It's more like the legal and financial mindset. Legal doesn't want trouble and can shoot anyone who it doesn't like with law bullets, Finance just want MAW $$$.
dmurray 2y ago
The argument that an iPad runs substantially the same OS and hardware as a MacBook weakens the authors case instead of strengthening it. You can buy from Apple a computer that's locked down (an iPad), or a computer that's not locked down by the author's definition (a MacBook). It's a matter of consumer choice, not the company insisting on control of your devices. The non-locked-down machines come in a different form factor than the locked-down ones - they usually have a physical keyboard and a larger form factor to accommodate that. This is partly for historical reasons, but very largely also for consumer choice - and also it makes sense that on the more flexible machine users are more likely to need a keyboard. This is all fine, you can't expect every company to sell their products with every combination of features. I find more convincing the arguments about e-waste, but they need to be framed like that: sometimes we should mandate consumers get something they don't particularly want, for the greater good.
kachapopopow 2y ago
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 into, use mirroring mode and completely bypass it. DRM is just one example, there's many more motivations such as preventing paid apps / pay for currency games from having these things given for free. This is the primary reason why iOS devices make significantly more money than android as it's near impossible to pirate / hack / crack for an average user.
- maniacwhat 2y ago
  Perhaps it imposes some restrictions, like using TPMs, but I don't think it excludes what the author is suggesting, which is the ability to run as root. Case in point: every popular desktop PC let's you run as root, and also watch DRM content. They aren't totally mutually exclusive.
  - margana 2y ago
    You can't play 4K Netflix on Linux, period. Because of DRM. Before you say "this is just a Netflix issue" - you can't play 4K Prime Video on Linux either. Nor 4K Disney+. And many other services. Piracy is the only way to watch most 4K streaming content on Linux. You may have the most capable and up-to-date hardware on the market, you still can't.
    - tombert 2y ago
      Yeah, that realization is what killed my attempt at replacing my Nvidia Shield TV with my home-built SteamOS box. I got everything "working" in the most technical sense, but I was limited to 720p on Hulu, and that ended up driving us crazy. I know that the box is capable of streaming 4K video just fine, because I was able to stream my 4K Blu-ray rips from my Jellyfin server just fine, so this limitation is purely artificial. I did do some experimentation with VMs and emulation and whatnot, but I never got anything that worked consistently enough to use full-time, so I bit the bullet and plugged my Nvidia Shield TV back in.
rednafi 2y ago
Computers have sharp edges, and people often throw hissy fits when things break. Manufacturers infantalize consumers to dodge lawsuits. Then companies like Apple take it too far by building walled gardens where devices don't have proper file systems, locking you out of your own files.
therealmarv 2y ago
Banking, some government and crypto apps on Android think: no They sometimes actively search for root evidence.
- fiso64 2y ago
  I'm actually confused about why banks are so aggressive in denying users the ability to use their apps while rooted. Unlike Google and Apple I can't think of any financial incentives for this, and the security argument is quite obviously nonsense, as I don't think there has been a single person in history who managed to fall for a scam that made them follow the complicated procedure of rooting a smartphone. Nevertheless there is a clear continuous effort in developing new root detection methods to keep me from using their apps.
  - adolph 2y ago
    > to fall for a scam that made them follow the complicated procedure of rooting If you are unable to imagine how a 3rd party might root a device without the principal being aware of it, then maybe it is a shortcoming of your risk survey, not theirs.
    - pimterry 2y ago
      Rooting an Android device generally requires completely wiping it and reinstalling the OS. It's quite impractical to do secretly! I think in any scenario where the principal can do that without you noticing (which means things like reinstalling & logging you back into all your apps, logging the device into your google account successfully, restoring all your device settings, re-adding your fingerprint or device pin to unlock the device, etc) then it's game over regardless. If they can do that, they could get into your bank app anyway, or they could easily just replace your phone with another one entirely, and now you're just logging into your bank on a stranger's phone. Barring a _very_ major Android zero-day (which probably would evade attestation anyway) unexpected rooting of your device is really not a plausible attack scenario.
  - whs 2y ago
throwaway984393 2y ago
[dead]
andrewla 2y ago
I'm not entirely aligned with this article, though I think the principle is correct. I do think that it should never be illegal to tamper with a device that you own in any way that you find acceptable. But I do not feel that manufacturers have any obligation to make this easy or possible. It should be completely legal to hack your devices and to distribute tools and instructions for hacking devices without limitation.
- i5heu 2y ago
  But the question here is if it should be illegal for manufacturers to make the modify a product. The difference is between a locked down boot loader and one that is just a standard boot loader.
  - andrewla 2y ago
    Right -- and that I don't agree with. My concern is laws that make it illegal to modify products you own or to offer advice or tools to people who wish to modify products they own. Similarly, arrangements like leases and limited licenses that convey some aspects of "ownership" but not complete ownership should also be severely restricted. In general if there are no legal recourses to go after people who modify their devices, then it makes it more appealing for manufacturers to allow a supported opt-out method because that reduces the incentives to compromise their products with out-of-band methods. So I'd prefer to take an indirect route of empowering customers rather than requiring manufacturers to do additional work to free up their products.
stainablesteel 2y ago
this would be great for cars too, i don't want a vehicle selling my data, or even collecting it in the first place
adolph 2y ago
What the author calls "double standard" could be reframed as "consumer choice." A vendor sells different devices. Some have provisions to make changes to the bootloader and some don't. The phrase "have provisions to make changes" is on purpose. It has not yet been proven to me that a change to an iPad's bootloader function is impossible. It certainly isn't as easy as that of Mac, but the skill/effort required is a gradient. This is similar to "soldered" storage. This was commonly thought of as impossible until it was demonstrated that a Mac will happily accept updated storage changed out with a hot air rework device. This method is certainly higher skill/effort/risk than remembering when to terminate 50pin SCSI, but shows that when a hacker has a will, there is a way. Is it ironic that as computing devices become easier to use, they also require higher skill to fix and modify? No, more likely there is an iron rule that when a device's external complexity is contained, the inner workings of that thing become more complex. Complexity did not decrease but was hidden. Does a grandfather clock and a tourbillon wristwatch encapsulate the same/similar general principles of timekeeping? Sure. If one has the skill to update parts of the grandfather clock, are those same skills sufficient for the wristwatch? Probably not. Should wristwatches be banned because people who update grandfather clocks do not have the skills to modify them? Surely not, that would be absurd. Likewise, demanding root in a form you find acceptable is absurd. If you can't take root one a device you possess, it's a skill issue for you to address not the vendor.
adolph 2y ago
> Devices that are locked become e-waste once a manufacturer stops supporting them. This keeps happening like clockwork: > Spotify’s Car Thing Contrary to the author's claim, Car Thing is a great example of what can happen with abandoned hardware. The device did not become e-waste when the manufacturer stopped supporting it. There is a lively community of people modifying and updating software and doing really interesting things. I lack one only because I missed the $15 price nadir and they are relatively high priced in the secondary market. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=Spotify+Car+Thing https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=Spotify+Car+Thing https://www.reddit.com/r/carthinghax/ https://www.reddit.com/r/carthinghax/
alkonaut 2y ago
From a consumer rights and environmental standpoint I agree. But it's important that only the actual owner of the device can do this, and not just the person in possession of the device. You don't want to make stolen devices be anything but paperweights. But so long as I (the owner) select the passphrase for unlocking it I don't see a problem.
looneysquash 2y ago
Yes, I agree. And I'd go even further, and limit the ability of devices to not be "owned outright", since that sound like a loophole. I do not want a EULA interfere with these rights.
bkummel 2y ago
Hear, hear!
ubermonkey 2y ago
I'm always amazed at the number of folks who are really, really mad that there exist products and services not intended for them. If you are a very technical person, and you want to have root on every device you own, then iOS is not for you. That's ok. Android exists! But iOS as an appliance-level, walled-garden environment is absolutely perfect FOR MOST USERS. And that's fine. Nursing a grudge because Apple makes products that include choices that YOU PERSONALLY don't like is incredibly weird and entitled. Just buy something else! There are options!
elzbardico 2y ago
This ship has sailed a long time ago. Thanks the MPAA and RIAA.
dmitrygr 2y ago
If I buy my grandma a device that is locked down in a way that NOBODY (including her, under the patient guidance of a scammer on the phone) can root, that is my choice. If you want a device that can be unlocked, the world is full of android tablets. Go wild. Some of us want an un-rootable device!
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> The main exception to this, I believe, would be for critical systems where compromising operation through software modification presents too high a risk. Examples I'm thinking of include: > certain medical devices, such as implants and insulin pumps > subsets of electronic control units for cars These are precisely the opposite of what should be exceptions. If you have a pacemaker implanted in your body, you need the right to replace whatever software is running on it before the manufacturer goes out of business and takes the signing keys with them. There exists no thing where the owner of the device should not have the right to replace the software it runs, and the more safety-critical the device the more important the right.
- ellenhp 2y ago
  Disclaimer I don't have a pacemaker: As a biohacker, I think this is a really bad take. I regularly put things [1] in my body of questionable provenance, and then cut them out of myself without anesthesia when they don't suit me anymore, but I like being alive too much to mess with a medical device like a pacemaker. Pacemaker hacking sounds hardcore and like, respect to anyone who does it but I don't think it should be easy to flash one of those things because I'd really prefer nobody do that to me in my sleep. [1]. https://dangerousthings.com/ https://dangerousthings.com/
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    You pretty obviously don't want to mess with it frivolously. But if there's something wrong with it, and you have to fix it? That seems better than the alternative where you can't. Note that the right to modify it doesn't imply that you're required to in the absence of any reason to. Also, if someone wants to kill you in your sleep, they... don't need you to even have a pacemaker. And the security of medical devices is notoriously bad, so if you're worried about that sort of thing, be more worried that the status quo doesn't allow you to fix the existing remotely exploitable wireless security vulnerabilities.
    - ellenhp 2y ago
      > existing remotely exploitable wireless security vulnerabilities That's just it though, in my opinion being able to flash the thing at all would count as a remotely exploitable wireless security vulnerability. The first thing I'd do if mine was flashable is lock it down to make sure it was no longer flashable. Does that make sense? I might not be articulating myself well here.
mattxxx 2y ago
Personally, I think everything should be hackable, however... Limiting the ability to _easily_ modify what's running on a system is more about public cyber-health than the individual's freedom. Viruses + malware much more easily infect systems when they are running outside of a sandbox.
curvaturearth 2y ago
At the very least there should be the right to unlock and use a device after it loses support. A whole ecosystem of software could exist (and does in some cases) to help support or repurpose old devices. If the hardware is still good for something, let it be used! I'm still using my MacBook Pro 2013 and it is fine. I worry I will not be able to do this with Apple's newer laptops. In addition, I want to be able to use my Sonos hardware after Sonos inevitably discontinues support. More realistically I'll eventually have to stop using my Sonos speaker, and realizing this I will never buy another Sonos product.
medhir 2y ago
OP here. Really glad to see others engaging with this topic, I wrote up this post because I felt like there wasn't anything out there that was advocating for unlocked hardware as part of the discussion on "right to repair". As someone that works in security, I fully understand the need for sane defaults that protect the average user. I even advocate in the article that we should keep these defaults in place for the most part. What I tend to not understand is the argument that there should be no option for more enterprising users to access their hardware at the lowest levels because we need to protect the average consumer. It may be a footgun for some, but that's sort of the point. I expect to be able to modify something I own, whether it's to my detriment or not. My argument isn't that root access should be the default, but at the very least it should be an option. I just don't think it's right that we've normalized corporations blocking the ability to load / inspect software, which often is marketed as a safety or privacy thing, but is arguably more a business decision meant to protect profit margins.
- BytesOfProblems 2y ago
  Thanks for this article, it was the most succinct way to describe the right to own and right to repair regressions I've noticed. I'm glad I can point to your article instead of trying to describe it myself. If you're looking for others advocating for this I know of Louis Rossmann. He also recently started a wiki on consumer protection that I hope to contribute and collaborate with to empower users. https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/index.php/How_to_help https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/index.php/How_to_help
tonymet 2y ago
A libertarian and consumer friendly right-to-repair (RTR) / right-to-own (RTO) governance model could be something like Orthodox Union or UL but for consumer devices The Right-to-Repair union RTR-U could be a simple authority with access to the keys to unlock the device if the vendor breaches certain commitments. Various levels of commitment could be offered similar to copy-left. The basic / lowest level would be "can unlock if the company dies". Higher commitments could be will unlock if ... company starts telemetry company changes licensing company stops providing timely firmware updates. This way consumers are guaranteed a certain quality of service and access on their devices. Then vendors get a stamp of approval (like OU or UL) with the level of certification like RTR-open, RTR-private , RTR-long-terms-support etc. This governance operates within private enterprise while consumers are offered the option to buy into vendors who commit to right-to-repair and right-to-own.
markus_zhang 2y ago
Because they just want to extract more $$ from the consumers. I'm OK to void any guarantee if I can root it easily, TBH.
notorandit 2y ago
Yes, please! Unfortunately, your smartphone doesn't (really) belong to you. It's a shared property between the hardware maker, the low level software producer (Qualcomm or Apple), the os owner (Google or Apple) and maybe finally you. Undocumented hardware plus closed source drivers for almost everything make all this possible.
- fsflover 2y ago
  > your smartphone doesn't (really) belong to you. Speak for yourself. Sent from my Librem 5.
  - notorandit 2y ago
    Fair! But 0.000001% of the market is hardly a point.
    - fsflover 2y ago
      The problem with your comment is that you didn't suggest any solution.
      - notorandit 2y ago
        Because there is none. Freedom is a game. Are you really free to bake your own bread? (Think about wheat, mills, water, salt, yeast, energy, oven...). I simply point to the fact that you have no control. Just it's illusion. Ask yourself, how can law enforcement push a software trojan into any mobile phone without physically touching it.
        fsflover 2y ago
        > Ask yourself, how can law enforcement push a software trojan into any mobile phone without physically touching it. Can they? > Are you really free to bake your own bread? (Think about Yes. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. You have to fight for your freedom to get it.
bretcindy 2y ago
[dead]
steve_taylor 2y ago
I don't really agree with this. There's no shortage of computing platforms in a variety of form factors (including tablets) for which root access is possible. When you buy an iPad, you do so knowing what you're getting and what you're not getting. It's a truly optional purchase, because no one really needs an iPad. I'd be concerned with a move away from root access across the board, but that doesn't appear to be happening.
konaraddi 2y ago
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).
throw_me_uwu 2y ago
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?

487 points by medhir 2y ago

p_ing 2y ago

Author seems to want 'hardware-level locks' regulated, i.e., allow the government to get into your encrypted devices.

drannex 2y ago
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.
- zb3 2y ago
  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.
- p_ing 2y ago
  Yes, that is exactly what the author is saying, wanting government regulation. For one, the government won't simply say "keep the device open for the end user" (or a "smart" government wouldn't), but even if they did, you've now opened that device to any attacker, law enforcement included.
  - stavros 2y ago
    So because I can sudo on my computer, my computer is open to any attacker? What's wrong with this comments section? Has anyone here used a computer before?
    - p_ing 2y ago
      What does the operating system have to do with an attacker? What's wrong with this comments section? Has anyone seen Israeli offline attacks of iPhones before?
      - stavros 2y ago
        The iPhones that famously won't let you unlock their bootloader? Yes we have, and I don't think that's making the argument you think it's making.

zb3 2y ago

> 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 manufacturers make use of pVMs..

zb3 2y ago
The TEE is where both the device encryption keys (not DRM) and Widevine keys (DRM) are stored..
- TechDebtDevin 2y ago
  So basically a TDM?
  - geraldhh 2y ago
    basically a hardwired authenticator dongle that the user cannot touch
causality0 2y ago
There's not nearly enough awareness of this. Even with root access, on modern Android you have to set up a virtual USB connection just to get at the files in the data folders of android apps if you want to, for example, sync the savegames between your mobile emulators and your desktop emulators. It's fucking disgusting. With every new edition they shave off a little more user agency.
- stavros 2y ago
  What do you mean "a virtual USB connection"? With root access I can see all the files on my Android phone.
  - 2y ago

mixdup 2y ago

For 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

stavros 2y ago
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?
- mixdup 2y ago
  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
  - Magnusmaster 2y ago
    Phones with unlockable bootloaders aren't going to be sold for much longer just like dumb TVs aren't sold anymore. There's just too much profit to be earned by corporations locking devices, plus banks and governments want to lock down phones. And once they lock down phones they'll go for desktops as well.
    - mixdup 2y ago

puppycodes 2y ago

not sure if your in the US, but we can't even get net neutrality. Unfortuantely the likelyhood of this is a hell freezing over situation. I would start with, laws should be logical and informed and go from there... the number of prerequisite changes required to come mildly close to this is unreal. Including but not limited too: copyright law, insurance law, patents, contract law, federal vs state law, an agency competent enough to enforce this, lobby from the most powerful companies in the world, and more. In dream land I support you though.

qmr 2y ago
California is typically pro consumer, tenant, employee. If it could be passed in California it would trickle down elsewhere. e.g. California emissions mandates leading to less emissions in the entire country because it makes more sense at scale to build 1 SKU.
- puppycodes 2y ago
  I agree states can more quickly change laws, but thats a far cry from what's proposed here. Can you imagine enforcement of such a law? Can you imagine a state employee checking for root access? You break at least five California laws an hour there just walking around as the beauracratic machine consumes any reasonable enforcement. This would be considered absolutely niche and no politician would likely care because it wont get them reelected. Call me cynical I guess but our track record of change for the better is pretty poor in this arena. In my dream we abolish copyright all together but alas we live in a profit oriented society not a knowledge oriented one.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  Let's not have more of a single state passing de facto laws for the entire country, please. You're right that this happens, but it's an awful thing that we need to fight, not promote more of.

theandrewbailey 2y ago

> 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.

shmerl 2y ago
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.
- jmb99 2y ago
  More than likely, they’ll instead just start actually renting you the products. See Apple’s 2-year rental program for a (relatively) non-predatory implementation, or NZXT’s for a very predatory implementation.
  - shmerl 2y ago
    It's one thing if they rent for cheaper and sell for more. But if they'll only rent it will be messed up.
zb3 2y ago
... plus the license to smash those devices with a hammer :)
lapcat 2y ago
> Manufacturers will then claim that people don't own devices, merely a perpetual license to use it. It would be refreshing for them to be honest about their monetary greed instead of telling false stories about "security" and what's "good for users".

lrvick 2y ago

I detest Google, but I do think they made the right call with Android devices and Chromebooks. You can unlock either as long as you are willing to totally wipe the device first and start over as a new device under a new security context. This removes the risk of this being abused to compromise the data of stolen devices or evil maid attacks unless a user that knows what they are doing has explicitly opted themselves into that risk.

alex7734 2y ago
This, or even sell "dev units" with the bootloader unlocked so that you explicitly have to accept the risk before purchasing the device. The problem though is that rooting by itself is not that useful when a lot of apps use remote attestation to deny you service if you're rooted. We don't just need root access, we need undetectable root access.
- cwalv 2y ago
  > We don't just need root access, we need undetectable root access. At some point the argument morphs from 'I should be able to do whatever I want with my device' to 'I should be able to access your service/device with whatever I want'. The fact that Google allows this shows that 1. Apple could do it with zero security impact on anyone who doesn't opt in 2. They could keep any service-based profit source intact But they still would never do it. Because it's not only service based profit they want to protect. They want to restrict customers from running competitor's software on their hardware, to ensure they get their cut.
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    > At some point the argument morphs from 'I should be able to do whatever I want with my device' to 'I should be able to access your service/device with whatever I want'. I'm not demanding to be able to log in to your service/device and replace IIS with Apache on it. I'm just demanding to be able to access it as a normal user with Firefox instead of Chrome.

emmelaich 2y ago

I 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.

Palomides 2y ago
"everyone is too stupid to be trusted with general purpose computers" is a pretty grim position to hold
- emmelaich 2y ago
  You left out the vital clause. "... if they have total unfettered control". Also, not everyone. Obviously. It's a position I came to rather regretfully and sadly.
  - LocalH 2y ago
    How do you propose we limit access to general-purpose computing without doing so across the board for everyone? How would you block bad actors from general-purpose computing? Require licensing to use development tools, and track what they're used for so you can react when someone crosses that "line"? Congratulations, you've just destroyed computing.
    - jmb99 2y ago
      While obviously not perfect, what we have today is > limit[ing] access to general-purpose computing without doing so across the board for everyone I imagine the vast majority of people on this site run (or at least have used) Linux, *BSD, etc. on a daily basis. No average person is going to set up Arch on their main PC, but lots of us do. Your average person enjoys their locked-down Samsungs and iPhones, while we enjoy unlocked problem-ridden (but personally solvable) Linux environments. Would it be better if every person who could buy an iPhone was sufficiently technically competent to not install malware on their easily-rootable phone? Yes. But that’s not the world we live in. Maybe I’m succumbing to the “First They Came...” mindset, but until I can’t run Linux on a PC I’ve built with components of my choosing, I don’t really care if my phone is a semi-closed semi-black box. I used to enjoy jailbreaking iOS devices, but eventually decided I’m happy with my phone just being a phone. If I want to tinker, I’ve got a rack full of servers and 3 different workstations I have the freedom to break whenever I want. It’s nice to have a phone that can just do phone things 100% of the time - I haven’t had an iOS system crash (or any bug preventing use) in about 5 years, which was the last time I had a jailbroken phone.

jazzyjackson 2y ago

If locking the bootloader and comparing signatures against keys burned into a secure enclave allow Apple to make certain security guarantees that helps them sell products, I'm all for their freedom to do so. Why doesn't OP merely champion competition, instead of encouraging regulation of what software others can write, what hardware others can ship? I too am afraid of general purpose computing going by the wayside, and I have the Precursor phone and Raptor Talos PowerPC machines on my wishlist, just as soon as I wrap my head around secure boot chains in general before having to implement one myself. But niche hardware is expensive to produce, so we're likely left with what AMD, Intel and Apple provides us. I guess one quirk that IMO is fair to criticize is that it's not necessarily consumers who are demanding to be locked out of their administrator privileges (the average computer user is of course not aware of the distinction of signed vs unsigned binaries), so I don't know where the pressure for secure enclaves really comes from. Is it the data centers buying thousands of chips that don't want to be pwned? government customers who refuse to buy a single die if they can't verify the bootloader? Or just patriotic engineers sensitive to a cybersecurity regime that demands we keep our guard up against enemies, foreign and domestic?

lapcat 2y ago
> Why doesn't OP merely champion competition, instead of encouraging regulation of what software others can write, what hardware others can ship? This is false dichotomy. Why not both? We need individual consumer rights, and we also need healthy market competition.
hamandcheese 2y ago
> so I don't know where the pressure for secure enclaves really comes from. The pressure comes from shareholders. User control means users can use their device in a way that benefits them, e.g. blocking invasive tracking. This benefit provides zero or negative shareholder value.
jmb99 2y ago
> so I don't know where the pressure for secure enclaves really comes from. In my experience, security engineers who see them as finally solving the “root of trust” problem. Generally (ime) it’s security engineers/teams that have been pushing for things like ssl/tls, global certificate stores, signed updates of those stores, signed kernels validating those updates. But if you break the kernel (or compromise the bootloader or EFI/BIOS) then it’s all for naught. A secure enclave solves that problem (unless you find a bug in it/its implementation) - your bootloader is validated, which validates your kernel, which validates all the userland components you care about. Security teams rejoice.

lapcat 2y ago

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 these other products are locked down by the vendor. The reason that computers are locked down by the vendors is not that computers are somehow more dangerous than other things we buy. The reason is simply that it's technically possible to lock down computers, and vendors have found that it's massively, MASSIVELY profitable to do so. It's all about protecting their profits, not protecting us. We know that the crApp Store is full of scams that steal literally millions of dollars from consumers, and we know that the computer vendors violate our privacy by phoning home with "analytics" covering everything we do on the devices. This is not intended for our benefit but rather for theirs.

mixdup 2y ago
There's a difference between being able to buy something dangerous and being forced to do so
- lapcat 2y ago
  Forced? I'm not sure I understand. My guess is that you're assuming, wrongly, that vendor locked devices are "safe" and unlocked devices are "unsafe". All computers that are connected to the internet are unsafe in some ways. The most dangerous apps on your computer are the vendor's own built-in web browser and messaging app. Also, the vendor-controlled software stores are unsafe cesspools. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Moreover, the vendors deliberately make it impossible for you to protect yourself. For example, iOS makes it difficult or impossible to inspect the file system directly, and you can't install software such as Little Snitch on iOS that stops 3rd party apps—as well as 1st party apps!—from phoning home. In any case, most computers, including Apple computers, have parental controls and the like, so you can lock down your own device to your heart's content if you don't trust yourself, or you don't trust the family member that you're gifting the device.

stavros 2y ago

Every time this issue comes up, an army of people who've never unlocked a phone comes out of the woodwork to talk about their theoretical fears of malware and piracy and rain falling from the sky if you dare to own your device. If you've never unlocked a phone, please educate yourself on how the process works before opining. It's really not as terrifying as you imagine.

dmichulke 2y ago
On the contrary, unlocking the bootloader might also be not as possible as you imagine. Happened twice to me: Once the URL for getting the key did not exist anymore. The other time it was disallowed after some time by the company.

khana 2y ago

[dead]

petesergeant 2y ago

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 sale, you should buy one of those.

jmb99 2y ago
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 from them because of someone else’s ideals?
- user_7832 2y ago
  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.
- BeFlatXIII 2y ago

jerjerjer 2y ago

Fully agreed. I was thinking of something similar, only I was calling it "Right to execute", similarly to the "Right to repair". I'm buying a general computing device. It's ridiculous I'm artificially limited in using it for the main purpose of making shareholders rich. Ideally I'd add a mandatory toolchain to that. At least a C compiler which should be able to target a device I own.

Ajedi32 2y ago
I just call it "Software Freedom", like GNU has since the 80s: > the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you I don't necessarily endorse all of Stallman's philosophy on software. But I think in this point at least he was very prescient.

solatic 2y ago

The way to balance security and freedom is with a hardware switch. By default, keep secure boot etc. But if someone opens the case, takes out the battery, and moves a little switch on the board? Start with a fresh, unprotected context. Because it's a hardware switch, it can't be remotely hacked. An adversary who gets the hardware anyway can get control (are we going to pretend otherwise?). So just do the right thing and make it easier for people to take over their own hardware.

cube2222 2y ago
> are we going to pretend otherwise? aren't we in fact pretending otherwise? Right now I believe that stolen iPhones are effectively bricks (barring state-level actors with unpatched zero-days)?

dinozarw 2y ago

The amount of hand-waving in this comments section is truly outstanding. Then again, it shouldn't really surprise me considering how many HN users work for the very companies that profit from vendor lockdown. "You will own nothing and you will be happy!"

zzo38computer 2y ago

> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright. I agree with this, as well as most (or all) of the other stuff mentioned in that article. However, sometimes it might be reasonable to have a switch inside that you must unscrew it (using a commonly available screwdriver, rather than an obscure one) to switch it (and then later be able to switch it back), in order to enable some functions (e.g. to be able to upgrade EEPROM, or to bypass a secure boot loader). If the user puts glitter on it, then this allows the user to detect tampering, while remaining secure and allowing full control.

nicman23 2y ago
No. This does not happen with anything else except phones. If you brick a laptop it is a 30 dollar fix on any local shop. The same cannot be said with any locked down device.
whs 2y ago
I remember how I flashed my Nintendo DS. In the back of the device there's a sticker over a screwhole. You'll need to poke a screwdriver in there, but inside is not a screw. It's an electrical contact to make the ROM read-write which your screwdriver needs to bridge, and stay bridged while the firmware is flashing (It is harmless if the contact is loss in the process, but I don't know if it would be safe to abort at that point) Pretty hard to convince someone to do that process, yet doable by anyone with a flathead screwdriver. I guess nowadays it become Samsung's e-fuse where if you flash it blow an e-fuse and the status of the fuse is now detectable with software. Then apps can refuse to service people just because the custom firmware fuse was blown.

dusted 2y ago

> 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 into arbitrary code to be one (is your fridge a computing device?) If we go the legal route, I think the only way is to give the right to flash firmware of _ANYTHING_ that has programmable bits, and that's probably not going to fly either because lots of legislation already dictates users should be prohibited and prevented.

reshlo 2y ago
> I'm sure apple will argue that nothing they sell should be considered computing devices. “What’s a computer?”
perlgeek 2y ago
> 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 ? If there is legislation, it will contain a definition of what is a computing device and what isn't. It will be imperfect, and the edge cases will be contested in courts. Courts deal with blurry boundaries all the time. That's how it always is with legal matters, and doesn't mean we have to demand that anything with a firmware must be flashable.
- dusted 2y ago
  What I mean is that I think this is the fastest way to end the era of widely-available general-purpose-computing devices that we are currently in (and that is currently ending, but at a glacial speed). It's not that hard to imagine a version of the world where computers as we know them do not exist, but are mere appliances (like tablets and smartphones), and if companies feel threatened that they might be forced to open up their computing devices, they will be quick to make them not fall under the definition. Instead of a smartphone, you will get a "Can telephone and access facebook and instasnap" device with whatever technical cripplement is needed to make it not a computing device and be exempt from the law. And as the general public and justice system is pretty ignorant with regard to technology, it's going to be pretty resource intensive to convince a judge why every gadget around that suddenly identifies as "not a computing device" is in fact on anyway.

cynicalsecurity 2y ago

We should thank all the major copyright holders for that. They are the reason many devices have been crippled. Because for them, the real enemy is the user, - that is you, my dear friend. They assume you to be a criminal by default, you know, like some crazy feminists assume all men are rapists just because they have a penis. Chop your penis off to prove you are not a rapist! Use your device without root access to prove you are not a filthy pirate who is "stealing" money from poor copyright holders who can barely afford women, yaughts and coke they are used to.

jopsen 2y ago

> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright. That's easy to say, but hard to legislate, and impossible to enforce. There is so much firmware around, small binary blobs burned into micro controllers that can't even be updated. Or that isn't intended to be updated. There are probably even dimmable LED bulbs without IoT features that still have a microcontroller. Because a tiny microcontroller is the cheapest way to add logic to anything. I'm not sure it isn't a good idea. Just not sure we grasp the ramifications.

raxxor 2y ago
I think a definition would exclude µC, dsps asics, fpga, etc. While most of those have the ability to program themselves, not all programs support such features. And for external programming you need programming devices who would also need physical interfaces where no standard connector exists. But a definition for general purpose computing devices wouldn't be harder than to craft legislation that requires my banking app to run on a certified shitty app environment.
palata 2y ago
> and impossible to enforce. You don't have to enforce it for every single manufacturer and every single product. If you enforce it for Apple, Samsung and a couple other big Android brands, you'll get most smartphones. Now whether it is a good idea or not, I don't know. But if you wanted to enforce it, I think it wouldn't be too hard. Banks get a ton of regulations and have to apply them all the time. Surely Apple or Samsung could do that, too.

anfilt 2y ago

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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39349288

medhir 2y ago
thanks for sharing. the loss of property rights is an aspect I hadn’t considered… would be great to brainstorm further with an actual lawyer on these topics
- anfilt 2y ago
  I recommend reading that paper I posted in the other comment. It underscores how important the right of exclusion is.
  - medhir 2y ago
    will do, thank you!

ptman 2y ago

"no user serviceable parts inside"

grishka 2y ago

The problem is larger than that, it's the IT industry's obsession with denying users the ability to evaluate their own risks and take their own responsibility. You do that all the time every day in most other areas of life, but somehow interacting with technology is different. The manufacturer always knows better. Don't want to have a time component to your biometric authentication because you know your risks? Too bad. Google and Apple know better. Password is required to unlock Touch ID.

markus_zhang 2y ago
I doubt any Apple engineer is very against the idea that an iPad user roots it. It's more like the legal and financial mindset. Legal doesn't want trouble and can shoot anyone who it doesn't like with law bullets, Finance just want MAW $$$.

dmurray 2y ago

The argument that an iPad runs substantially the same OS and hardware as a MacBook weakens the authors case instead of strengthening it. You can buy from Apple a computer that's locked down (an iPad), or a computer that's not locked down by the author's definition (a MacBook). It's a matter of consumer choice, not the company insisting on control of your devices. The non-locked-down machines come in a different form factor than the locked-down ones - they usually have a physical keyboard and a larger form factor to accommodate that. This is partly for historical reasons, but very largely also for consumer choice - and also it makes sense that on the more flexible machine users are more likely to need a keyboard. This is all fine, you can't expect every company to sell their products with every combination of features. I find more convincing the arguments about e-waste, but they need to be framed like that: sometimes we should mandate consumers get something they don't particularly want, for the greater good.

kachapopopow 2y ago

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 into, use mirroring mode and completely bypass it. DRM is just one example, there's many more motivations such as preventing paid apps / pay for currency games from having these things given for free. This is the primary reason why iOS devices make significantly more money than android as it's near impossible to pirate / hack / crack for an average user.

maniacwhat 2y ago
Perhaps it imposes some restrictions, like using TPMs, but I don't think it excludes what the author is suggesting, which is the ability to run as root. Case in point: every popular desktop PC let's you run as root, and also watch DRM content. They aren't totally mutually exclusive.
- margana 2y ago
  You can't play 4K Netflix on Linux, period. Because of DRM. Before you say "this is just a Netflix issue" - you can't play 4K Prime Video on Linux either. Nor 4K Disney+. And many other services. Piracy is the only way to watch most 4K streaming content on Linux. You may have the most capable and up-to-date hardware on the market, you still can't.
  - tombert 2y ago
    Yeah, that realization is what killed my attempt at replacing my Nvidia Shield TV with my home-built SteamOS box. I got everything "working" in the most technical sense, but I was limited to 720p on Hulu, and that ended up driving us crazy. I know that the box is capable of streaming 4K video just fine, because I was able to stream my 4K Blu-ray rips from my Jellyfin server just fine, so this limitation is purely artificial. I did do some experimentation with VMs and emulation and whatnot, but I never got anything that worked consistently enough to use full-time, so I bit the bullet and plugged my Nvidia Shield TV back in.

rednafi 2y ago

Computers have sharp edges, and people often throw hissy fits when things break. Manufacturers infantalize consumers to dodge lawsuits. Then companies like Apple take it too far by building walled gardens where devices don't have proper file systems, locking you out of your own files.

therealmarv 2y ago

Banking, some government and crypto apps on Android think: no They sometimes actively search for root evidence.

fiso64 2y ago
I'm actually confused about why banks are so aggressive in denying users the ability to use their apps while rooted. Unlike Google and Apple I can't think of any financial incentives for this, and the security argument is quite obviously nonsense, as I don't think there has been a single person in history who managed to fall for a scam that made them follow the complicated procedure of rooting a smartphone. Nevertheless there is a clear continuous effort in developing new root detection methods to keep me from using their apps.
- adolph 2y ago
  > to fall for a scam that made them follow the complicated procedure of rooting If you are unable to imagine how a 3rd party might root a device without the principal being aware of it, then maybe it is a shortcoming of your risk survey, not theirs.
  - pimterry 2y ago
    Rooting an Android device generally requires completely wiping it and reinstalling the OS. It's quite impractical to do secretly! I think in any scenario where the principal can do that without you noticing (which means things like reinstalling & logging you back into all your apps, logging the device into your google account successfully, restoring all your device settings, re-adding your fingerprint or device pin to unlock the device, etc) then it's game over regardless. If they can do that, they could get into your bank app anyway, or they could easily just replace your phone with another one entirely, and now you're just logging into your bank on a stranger's phone. Barring a _very_ major Android zero-day (which probably would evade attestation anyway) unexpected rooting of your device is really not a plausible attack scenario.
- whs 2y ago

throwaway984393 2y ago

[dead]

andrewla 2y ago

I'm not entirely aligned with this article, though I think the principle is correct. I do think that it should never be illegal to tamper with a device that you own in any way that you find acceptable. But I do not feel that manufacturers have any obligation to make this easy or possible. It should be completely legal to hack your devices and to distribute tools and instructions for hacking devices without limitation.

i5heu 2y ago
But the question here is if it should be illegal for manufacturers to make the modify a product. The difference is between a locked down boot loader and one that is just a standard boot loader.
- andrewla 2y ago
  Right -- and that I don't agree with. My concern is laws that make it illegal to modify products you own or to offer advice or tools to people who wish to modify products they own. Similarly, arrangements like leases and limited licenses that convey some aspects of "ownership" but not complete ownership should also be severely restricted. In general if there are no legal recourses to go after people who modify their devices, then it makes it more appealing for manufacturers to allow a supported opt-out method because that reduces the incentives to compromise their products with out-of-band methods. So I'd prefer to take an indirect route of empowering customers rather than requiring manufacturers to do additional work to free up their products.

stainablesteel 2y ago

this would be great for cars too, i don't want a vehicle selling my data, or even collecting it in the first place

adolph 2y ago

What the author calls "double standard" could be reframed as "consumer choice." A vendor sells different devices. Some have provisions to make changes to the bootloader and some don't. The phrase "have provisions to make changes" is on purpose. It has not yet been proven to me that a change to an iPad's bootloader function is impossible. It certainly isn't as easy as that of Mac, but the skill/effort required is a gradient. This is similar to "soldered" storage. This was commonly thought of as impossible until it was demonstrated that a Mac will happily accept updated storage changed out with a hot air rework device. This method is certainly higher skill/effort/risk than remembering when to terminate 50pin SCSI, but shows that when a hacker has a will, there is a way. Is it ironic that as computing devices become easier to use, they also require higher skill to fix and modify? No, more likely there is an iron rule that when a device's external complexity is contained, the inner workings of that thing become more complex. Complexity did not decrease but was hidden. Does a grandfather clock and a tourbillon wristwatch encapsulate the same/similar general principles of timekeeping? Sure. If one has the skill to update parts of the grandfather clock, are those same skills sufficient for the wristwatch? Probably not. Should wristwatches be banned because people who update grandfather clocks do not have the skills to modify them? Surely not, that would be absurd. Likewise, demanding root in a form you find acceptable is absurd. If you can't take root one a device you possess, it's a skill issue for you to address not the vendor.

adolph 2y ago

> Devices that are locked become e-waste once a manufacturer stops supporting them. This keeps happening like clockwork: > Spotify’s Car Thing Contrary to the author's claim, Car Thing is a great example of what can happen with abandoned hardware. The device did not become e-waste when the manufacturer stopped supporting it. There is a lively community of people modifying and updating software and doing really interesting things. I lack one only because I missed the $15 price nadir and they are relatively high priced in the secondary market. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=Spotify+Car+Thing https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=Spotify+Car+Thing https://www.reddit.com/r/carthinghax/ https://www.reddit.com/r/carthinghax/

alkonaut 2y ago

From a consumer rights and environmental standpoint I agree. But it's important that only the actual owner of the device can do this, and not just the person in possession of the device. You don't want to make stolen devices be anything but paperweights. But so long as I (the owner) select the passphrase for unlocking it I don't see a problem.

looneysquash 2y ago

Yes, I agree. And I'd go even further, and limit the ability of devices to not be "owned outright", since that sound like a loophole. I do not want a EULA interfere with these rights.

bkummel 2y ago

Hear, hear!

ubermonkey 2y ago

I'm always amazed at the number of folks who are really, really mad that there exist products and services not intended for them. If you are a very technical person, and you want to have root on every device you own, then iOS is not for you. That's ok. Android exists! But iOS as an appliance-level, walled-garden environment is absolutely perfect FOR MOST USERS. And that's fine. Nursing a grudge because Apple makes products that include choices that YOU PERSONALLY don't like is incredibly weird and entitled. Just buy something else! There are options!

elzbardico 2y ago

This ship has sailed a long time ago. Thanks the MPAA and RIAA.

dmitrygr 2y ago

If I buy my grandma a device that is locked down in a way that NOBODY (including her, under the patient guidance of a scammer on the phone) can root, that is my choice. If you want a device that can be unlocked, the world is full of android tablets. Go wild. Some of us want an un-rootable device!

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> The main exception to this, I believe, would be for critical systems where compromising operation through software modification presents too high a risk. Examples I'm thinking of include: > certain medical devices, such as implants and insulin pumps > subsets of electronic control units for cars These are precisely the opposite of what should be exceptions. If you have a pacemaker implanted in your body, you need the right to replace whatever software is running on it before the manufacturer goes out of business and takes the signing keys with them. There exists no thing where the owner of the device should not have the right to replace the software it runs, and the more safety-critical the device the more important the right.

ellenhp 2y ago
Disclaimer I don't have a pacemaker: As a biohacker, I think this is a really bad take. I regularly put things [1] in my body of questionable provenance, and then cut them out of myself without anesthesia when they don't suit me anymore, but I like being alive too much to mess with a medical device like a pacemaker. Pacemaker hacking sounds hardcore and like, respect to anyone who does it but I don't think it should be easy to flash one of those things because I'd really prefer nobody do that to me in my sleep. [1]. https://dangerousthings.com/ https://dangerousthings.com/
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  You pretty obviously don't want to mess with it frivolously. But if there's something wrong with it, and you have to fix it? That seems better than the alternative where you can't. Note that the right to modify it doesn't imply that you're required to in the absence of any reason to. Also, if someone wants to kill you in your sleep, they... don't need you to even have a pacemaker. And the security of medical devices is notoriously bad, so if you're worried about that sort of thing, be more worried that the status quo doesn't allow you to fix the existing remotely exploitable wireless security vulnerabilities.
  - ellenhp 2y ago
    > existing remotely exploitable wireless security vulnerabilities That's just it though, in my opinion being able to flash the thing at all would count as a remotely exploitable wireless security vulnerability. The first thing I'd do if mine was flashable is lock it down to make sure it was no longer flashable. Does that make sense? I might not be articulating myself well here.

mattxxx 2y ago

Personally, I think everything should be hackable, however... Limiting the ability to _easily_ modify what's running on a system is more about public cyber-health than the individual's freedom. Viruses + malware much more easily infect systems when they are running outside of a sandbox.

curvaturearth 2y ago

At the very least there should be the right to unlock and use a device after it loses support. A whole ecosystem of software could exist (and does in some cases) to help support or repurpose old devices. If the hardware is still good for something, let it be used! I'm still using my MacBook Pro 2013 and it is fine. I worry I will not be able to do this with Apple's newer laptops. In addition, I want to be able to use my Sonos hardware after Sonos inevitably discontinues support. More realistically I'll eventually have to stop using my Sonos speaker, and realizing this I will never buy another Sonos product.

medhir 2y ago

OP here. Really glad to see others engaging with this topic, I wrote up this post because I felt like there wasn't anything out there that was advocating for unlocked hardware as part of the discussion on "right to repair". As someone that works in security, I fully understand the need for sane defaults that protect the average user. I even advocate in the article that we should keep these defaults in place for the most part. What I tend to not understand is the argument that there should be no option for more enterprising users to access their hardware at the lowest levels because we need to protect the average consumer. It may be a footgun for some, but that's sort of the point. I expect to be able to modify something I own, whether it's to my detriment or not. My argument isn't that root access should be the default, but at the very least it should be an option. I just don't think it's right that we've normalized corporations blocking the ability to load / inspect software, which often is marketed as a safety or privacy thing, but is arguably more a business decision meant to protect profit margins.

BytesOfProblems 2y ago
Thanks for this article, it was the most succinct way to describe the right to own and right to repair regressions I've noticed. I'm glad I can point to your article instead of trying to describe it myself. If you're looking for others advocating for this I know of Louis Rossmann. He also recently started a wiki on consumer protection that I hope to contribute and collaborate with to empower users. https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/index.php/How_to_help https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/index.php/How_to_help

tonymet 2y ago

A libertarian and consumer friendly right-to-repair (RTR) / right-to-own (RTO) governance model could be something like Orthodox Union or UL but for consumer devices The Right-to-Repair union RTR-U could be a simple authority with access to the keys to unlock the device if the vendor breaches certain commitments. Various levels of commitment could be offered similar to copy-left. The basic / lowest level would be "can unlock if the company dies". Higher commitments could be will unlock if ... company starts telemetry company changes licensing company stops providing timely firmware updates. This way consumers are guaranteed a certain quality of service and access on their devices. Then vendors get a stamp of approval (like OU or UL) with the level of certification like RTR-open, RTR-private , RTR-long-terms-support etc. This governance operates within private enterprise while consumers are offered the option to buy into vendors who commit to right-to-repair and right-to-own.

markus_zhang 2y ago

Because they just want to extract more $$ from the consumers. I'm OK to void any guarantee if I can root it easily, TBH.

notorandit 2y ago

Yes, please! Unfortunately, your smartphone doesn't (really) belong to you. It's a shared property between the hardware maker, the low level software producer (Qualcomm or Apple), the os owner (Google or Apple) and maybe finally you. Undocumented hardware plus closed source drivers for almost everything make all this possible.

fsflover 2y ago
> your smartphone doesn't (really) belong to you. Speak for yourself. Sent from my Librem 5.
- notorandit 2y ago
  Fair! But 0.000001% of the market is hardly a point.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    The problem with your comment is that you didn't suggest any solution.
    - notorandit 2y ago
      Because there is none. Freedom is a game. Are you really free to bake your own bread? (Think about wheat, mills, water, salt, yeast, energy, oven...). I simply point to the fact that you have no control. Just it's illusion. Ask yourself, how can law enforcement push a software trojan into any mobile phone without physically touching it.
      - fsflover 2y ago
        > Ask yourself, how can law enforcement push a software trojan into any mobile phone without physically touching it. Can they? > Are you really free to bake your own bread? (Think about Yes. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. You have to fight for your freedom to get it.

bretcindy 2y ago

[dead]

steve_taylor 2y ago

I don't really agree with this. There's no shortage of computing platforms in a variety of form factors (including tablets) for which root access is possible. When you buy an iPad, you do so knowing what you're getting and what you're not getting. It's a truly optional purchase, because no one really needs an iPad. I'd be concerned with a move away from root access across the board, but that doesn't appear to be happening.

konaraddi 2y ago

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).

throw_me_uwu 2y ago

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?