Right to root access
96 comments
·January 12, 2025lapcat
userbinator
Not only profits, but control. Remember the whole CSAM scanning debacle from Apple?
mixdup
There's a difference between being able to buy something dangerous and being forced to do so
lapcat
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.
mixdup
Today, yes, I can lock down the iPhone I give to my son, but if it can be unlocked to run arbitrary software then he can in theory unlock it. Yes, it is on me to continue to monitor the device to make sure he hasn't done it, but the point stands
And the assumption you refer to, there are varying definitions for "safe". Is a device with a locked bootloader 100% safe in all use cases and all circumstances? Of course not. But me being able to reasonably trust that someone hasn't put a compromised version of the OS on the device, or, won't be able to put a different firmware on the device to brute force my encrypted contents is a bit of safety in a certain set of circumstances that I want in my device
If Apple, or anyone else, were precluded from locking the boot loader yes, I would be forced to buy a device that the FBI or anyone else could in theory poke around on enough to try to get at my data
gjsman-1000
This is a very popular HN opinion; but not a very popular real world opinion.
The average customer wants a device that works consistently, every day, that is easy to use, with a collection of 3rd party apps who won’t steal their life savings.
Windows failed to deliver this; the average customer never downloads an Exe from a newer publisher without terror. The average consumer is literally dozens of times more likely to trust a new smartphone app than a new desktop app.
We can also see this in the console market. Windows exists; old gaming PCs exist; the locked down console market will be with us forever because even Windows can’t deliver a simple experience that reliably works.
do_not_redeem
The average customer wants a car that doesn't explode because you installed a sketchy spark plug. Does that mean the manufacturers should install locks on the hood of every new car, with the threat of jail time if you pick the lock and look underneath?
gjsman-1000
A sketchy spark plug does not have the ability to make a car explode, so the analogy is pointless.
On that note, even if someone stole your car, at least your car does not have access to your bank account, your passwords, your messages, and even your sexual history. The personal and reputational cost of losing a car is not comparable.
Many people would actually probably prefer their car to be stolen than the contents of their phone be public.
I think a more accurate comparison would be to an electrician. In Australia, doing your own electrical work is a crime even for the homeowner, because it can cause physical death, and is too likely to be done wrong. Yes, you will possibly go to jail for replacing $2 light switches. I assure you that most people’s phones have things they would prefer physical death over being publicly distributed.
stavros
And consumers can have that. That doesn't mean I should be unable to unlock my phone and do whatever I want with it.
gjsman-1000
The problem is not the ability to unlock your phone.
The problem is that 90% of people unlocking their phones will either be for piracy (against the company’s interests), or against the customer's own interests (stalkerware, data extraction, sale of stolen devices).
There is a reason malware is over 50 times as prevalent on Android.
lapcat
> with a collection of 3rd party apps who won’t steal their life savings.
This is blatant unempirical scare mongering. How many desktop computer users have had their life savings stolen by 3rd party apps? Citation needed.
> The average consumer is literally dozens of times more likely to trust a new smartphone app than a new desktop app.
This is a false dichotomy. Almost all desktop computer users have a smartphone too. The people who have enough disposable income buy both smartphones and desktop computers. There's no inherent conflict between the two.
> the locked down console market will be with us forever because even Windows can’t deliver a simple experience that reliably works.
That's a competely ahistorical interpretation. Originally, the gaming consoles had no third-party games: the games were all written by the vendors. The first third-party game development company was Activision, a group of former Atari programmers who learned that their games were responsible for most of Atari's revenue, but Atari refused to give them a cut, so they left and formed their own company. There was a lawsuit, and it was ultimately settled, allowing Atari to get a cut of Activision while allowing Activision to otherwise continue developing console games. It had nothing to do with "reliablity" or "security" or any kind of made-up excuse like that.
gjsman-1000
> This is blatant unempirical scare mongering. How many desktop computer users have had their life savings stolen by 3rd party apps?
You’re kidding, right? You seem to have completely forgotten, or put the drunk glasses, on what living in the 2000s was like. Also, I don’t care that you made it, don’t let your survival bias hit you on the way out.
> Originally, the gaming consoles had no third-party games: the games were all written by the vendors
What a stereotypical HN comment. Cite something that only applied to the 2nd generation of consoles to prove me wrong, even though my point spans almost all console generations.
fargle
that's a, frankly, stupid argument. the conclusion doesn't follow the premise.
then don't root your phone or download an .exe. having the ability to do something doesn't mean you are forced to do it.
not safe enough for you? fine! make the current status quo comfortable walled-garden-of-illusionary-fake-safety the default. for example, there's no reason windows needs to by default allow unsigned code to run. hell, even make it really annoying to turn off.
but the "safety" and "easy to use" arguments against right-to-repair, digital rights, ownership, etc. is simply nonsense. there is literally ZERO negative safety or usability impact to anyone else's device because i'd like to own mine.
it's also an insulting and disingenuous argument to hear anyone on this forum make: our careers and entire segment of the economy would not exist if it were not for open systems. and it's insulting to basically say "bubba/granny is too dumb to be trusted" with owning their own device.
lrvick
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.
yndoendo
I contacted the Google through the BBB. Made the statement that lack of ability to install and configure a Kernel level firewall, edit the HOSTS file, and remove unwanted bloat-ware reduces the security of the product. Google agreed their actions do this and said they find the lack of security acceptable. Having a firewall like Little Snitch should be acceptable to know where the phone is communicate, with whom, and how to prevent it.
Re-imaging with a rooted image is not acceptable because this also reduces the device's security by prevent OTA updates!
Gated community is broken when the end user cannot improve the security of the device above and beyond the lack polices of Google and Apple. For instant there should be no reason my device ever communicates with organizations I do not support such as Facebook or X-Twitter. X-Twitter is often used as command and control service in plain site.
It is not just out-wards communicate to monitor but in-wards too. I've used Zone Alarm in the past at an international company to help find the infected servers and computers that where serving up viruses and other malware.
*I would argue that the "Gated Community" analogy is flawed. A real world gated community still allows for the home owner to improve the security. By installing cameras, security system, and guards. Apple & Google prevent such actions.
alex7734
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
> 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
> 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.
stavros
Agreed, that's a good solution. I can root my phone immediately when I buy it, or I can leave it locked if that's my choice. That's the best of both worlds.
yjftsjthsd-h
I would argue that the best of both worlds is being able to add your own keys and then relock the bootloader. Which Pixel devices also do:) Not sure about Chromebooks; I kinda think you maybe could reflash the firmware and then put back the write-protect screw?
jerjerjer
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.
jazzyjackson
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?
hamandcheese
> 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.
lapcat
> 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.
puppycodes
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
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
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.
emmelaich
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
"everyone is too stupid to be trusted with general purpose computers" is a pretty grim position to hold
emmelaich
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.
gjsman-1000
A grim position that is completely accurate for over 90% of people.
lapcat
As the author mentions, desktop computers have always been (mostly) unlocked. This comment is just over the top scaremongering.
emmelaich
Even with access controls, people do things like download chrome from random web sites, then do their banking with the result. If the fake-chrome requested admin access then you'd never be able trust anything on that computer ever again. Even re-installing the OS wouldn't fix it.
It would no longer be your computer.
stavros
So because it would no longer be our computer, we should buy one that's not ours from the start?
yjftsjthsd-h
> If the fake-chrome requested admin access
If the user is doing banking on fake-chrome then admin is pointless; https://xkcd.com/1200/
> then you'd never be able trust anything on that computer ever again. Even re-installing the OS wouldn't fix it.
Why not? If the hardware is under user control, they just reimage the firmware, reimage the OS, and then it's clean. (Or, in practice, perhaps they hire the local computer shop to do so, but I don't think that changes anything.)
emmelaich
Yep, and if you connected a Windows95 machine to the internet it would be compromised within 15 minutes.
qmr
Stupidest take I've seen today.
There are already myriad unlockable devices.
What a bizarre fantasy you have constructed.
emmelaich
Let me clarify .. if you have an unlocked device, then software vendors should be able to ensure that their software is non-functional on such a device.
Given that, then anything very useful would be rendered non-functional, resulting in the device probably being useless.
yjftsjthsd-h
Why should a software vendor be allowed to say what I can and can't run on my machine?
theandrewbailey
> 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.
lapcat
> 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".
shmerl
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.
zb3
... plus the license to smash those devices with a hammer :)
petesergeant
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.
stavros
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.
p_ing
Author seems to want 'hardware-level locks' regulated, i.e., allow the government to get into your encrypted devices.
drannex
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.
p_ing
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
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?
zb3
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.
zb3
> 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..
puppycodes
Yeah I mean theres not even any way to really know what your communicating with without taking the thing apart and following the traces + an ocilliscope. If it was worth obfuscating to a determined company it would be hell to figure out.
You could just be a sandbox root which is pointed at a guest user in a higher namespace.
zb3
The TEE is where both the device encryption keys (not DRM) and Widevine keys (DRM) are stored..
TechDebtDevin
So basically a TDM?
causality0
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
What do you mean "a virtual USB connection"? With root access I can see all the files on my Android phone.
qmr
It's sad how Google has perverted what Android was meant to be.
khana
[dead]
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.