[medhir]

Every day we stray farther from the premise that we should be allowed to install / modify software on the computers we own.

Will once again re-up the concept of a “right to root access”, to prevent big corps from pulling this bs over and over again: https://medhir.com/blog/right-to-root-access

[baq]

In the meantime, corporate is thinking about locking browsers down. Remember this? https://chromestatus.com/feature/5796524191121408

They’ll try again, with big business and governments cheering on them.

[matheusmoreira]

> They’ll try again, with big business and governments cheering on them.

No doubt. They only have to win once. We have to keep defending our own freedoms against non-stop assault until the end of time.

I'm so tired and disillusioned.

[ulrikrasmussen]

Government in EU will want it once they introduce the Chat Control legislation and observe that it is trivial to circumvent by either modifying clients to not scan or using free open source alternatives. Logical next step is to lock down all devices and thereby also ensure total and utter surrender of all our digital infrastructure to the current duopoly in the mobile device market (Apple and Google).

[_heimdall]

The question really isn't whether we should be able to modify computers we own, its whether we own them at all.

[_def]

The question of how private property, intellectual property and posession/ownership should work is indeed something humanity hasn't properly figured out yet.

But if anything, regular people should have more of the cake.

[matheusmoreira]

And the answer is we don't. If we can't run our own software, then we do not own the computer. To run software of our choosing we need the cryptographic keys to the machine and we sure as hell don't own those keys.

[yesbut]

regardless of what the corporations say we do own the devices we purchase.

[sumtechguy]

The thing is most people do not want to mess with computers. They are terrified they are going to break them. Frankly they are not wrong. I spent yesterday just trying to get a div tag to flow correctly with all the objects around it, a whole day down the drain. I have a pretty good idea what I am doing. However, for others these things we call computers are inscrutable devices that just 'decide' to do something wrong. We have built this https://xkcd.com/2347/ and expect everyone to be cool with it. Most people most certainly are not, and are willing to give away whatever just to make it easier to use, and not randomly screw up. Apple and Google can take whatever they gave away now because well most people really do not care. The rest of us can pound sand for all they care. We effectively have a duopoly and they are acting exactly in the manor of that.

[apatheticonion]

Also add "the right to maintain". Too many Android devices have drivers hidden behind kernel forks that will never be updated.

I'd love to install OpenWRT on my portable 5g modem currently running Android - . but I can't and likely never will. Same for my IoT automated blinds

[GardenLetter27]

Reminds of RMS's The Right To Read - http://mat.puc-rio.br/~nicolau/stallmann/tycho10h.html

[zigzag312]

Computing devices hardware and operating systems should be treated as essential digital infrastructure, with laws in place to ensure that the owner of the device retains full control over it and to prevent manufacturers or developers from over-imposing their control.

[i-use-nixos-btw]

Computing devices hardware and operating systems should be treated as a consumer's choice.

If a company offers some benefit at the cost of some restriction, then users should decide if that benefit is worth the cost. For most Android users, it will be - my grandma isn't interested in the freedom of indie devs to develop for her phone, she's interested in not accidentally installing malware.

I don't like that as much as you don't - for my own devices. But like anyone else who cares about that, I can root it and get past the digital nanny state.

[eru]

Root access on your phone isn't enough: there's layers below root.

[apitman]

I accidentally read this as "there's lawyers below root" and I'm not sure I'm wrong.

[preisschild]

Yep. I don't need/want root access, as it is too much of a security risk IMO. But of course the possibility to install a `su` binary should be there.

I primarily want to be able to unlock the bootloader to install a custom de-googled Android Version (such as GrapheneOS) and then lock the bootloader again (using a custom_avb_key). This is currently possible with Google's Pixel devices, but most Android devices don't even offer this...

[ACCount37]

This. But being able to get root is a very good starting point.

[abdullahkhalids]

There is no chance that we own our computers unless we figure out how to setup chip manufacturing factories at the 10 million dollar price point.

Without commoditized hardware, big capital will surely be in control of software.

[rickdeckard]

I think there is also still room to legally require a common SW-layer with respective documentation to utilize features of underlying hardware (optional without the shipped OS on top, disconnecting the device from the shipped ecosystem).

This would also make sense in order to prevent e-waste and put this old hardware to better use.

It's crazy to think how much computing power is just added to a drawer or landfill every day, just because there is no reason for the vendor to allow you to repurpose it.

I would e.g. LOVE a "Browser on everything" OS which just provides a Browser OS for outdated hardware, but the only way this could work on scale would be if the device-vendor would be mandated to provide and document the lower layer...

[ozgrakkurt]

I can buy a computer, disable secure boot, install linux and then do w/e I want.

Same can be true for phones?

[SlowTao]

This is something the folks in the Permacomputing space have been discussing on and off for years.

Maybe we can make chips at the level of a 386 but they would be freedom respecting.

Starting to sound like Stallman again.

[noosphr]

We live in a world where the top chip makers are being shaken down by the US government to keep access to markets because embargoes and tariffs. And where software developers have to have a live feed of what every user is doing to Brussels or be arrested.

Too much capitalism isn't our problem.

[BrenBarn]

Conditioning such rights on the device being "owned outright" will just push the same bad actors to rent you the phones instead of buying them, the same as they did with software licenses. The only way to really fix it is to break up the wealth and power of individuals and corporations based on their total effective power, regardless of the source from which that power is derived.

[vorejdajo]

>The only way to really fix it is to break up the wealth and power of individuals and corporations based on their total effective power

That simply transfers the power to the one doing the breakup, which in most cases, are the Governments, which are notoriously known to invade user's privacy under the guise of protection of children or whatever.

[ozim]

Tell that to all those assholes that are making malware and scamming society on billions.

Most of users are not able to keep themselves safe in the internet - they want to install all kind of crap without thinking too much.

All of this is companies making it possible that average Joe could just click links, install any kind of crap and still be somewhat secure.

[thecupisblue]

This is not related to malware or scams, and using that is nothing but a PR smoke screen.

While Android is vulnerable, especially to user stupidity, people mostly get scammed by fake credit card charges or by giving access to their notifications and contacts allowing for spam.

And yes, while there are "infected" APK's for popular apps , this again isn't the case here.

The real case here is money.

Apple earns $27B from commision on apps, while Google earns about $3B. Why?

Because Android users are "less willing to pay", which includes pirated APK's and "unlocked" app versions. Eliminating the possibility of using these for 99% of the people will be enough to force them to pay for that app/service in the end, raising the Play store revenues.

Do not trust Google when it comes to "doing it for the user" - their mission is to establish as strong of a monopoly on the platforms and extract as much value as possible. They spent more money on lawyers & policy lobbyists in the last 10 years trying to keep Android closed than some S&P500 companies are worth.

[account42]

> Tell that to all those assholes that are making malware and scamming society on billions.

So like Google?

Software that acts against the wishes of the user is malware, let's not forget that.

[Cthulhu_]

Exactly this; the vast majority of people cannot be trusted with root access. And for those that can, the majority won't need or want it.

While I do believe root access should be possible, it shouldn't be easy. Because I'm confident my dad who wants to pirate F1 instead of pay for whichever overpriced premium streaming platform bought the rights this year would root his ipad and install a dodgy stream player if it was easy.

[goku12]

> Tell that to all those assholes that are making malware and scamming society on billions.

And then? I don't know how many times I've downloaded APKs, including obviously malicious ones by accident. But not once has it ever been installed - not even when it was deliberate. The only way I ever 'sideloaded' anything is using 3rd party stores (just fdroid and aurora in my case), which themselves had to be installed via ADB after enabling developer mode. If you have that much skill, you're almost surely skilled enough to understand the security implications of sideloading and choose wisely.

And there are far worse malware available on play store than anything on fdroid repositories, if anything at all - anonymous or not. I hope you remember the SimpleMobileApps fiasco. People who installed it from fdroid were safe from the malicious update, but those who did it from play store were not, when the entire suite was turned into a spyware overnight. Not to mention the tea and boxscore apps scandal. Neither would have made it into fdroid. Google cares the least bit about security, if that isn't clear from the spyware tht each new android phone comes bundled with.

In all, Google's claim of security here is deceptive and farcical. The actual target is going to be the patched apps like revanced, root access software and anything else similar that allows the savvy user to escape the unfair and arbitrary limitations imposed by Google. The ultimate target is the users' pockets. This entire discussion is full of people reaffirming that conclusion. But scapegoats will be found and sacrificed regardless. Let's just not for once. Google deserves the atmost and undiluted contempt and condemnation for their greed and their willingness to erode consumer rights that underlie such dishonestly worded hostile and unilateral decisions.

[Intermernet]

To install 3rd party APKs on Android involves deliberately removing some guard rails. You need to allow it in settings, you need to enable developer mode, you need to agree to each individual source as a trusted source. If people are still blaming malware on this, when malware exists in the actual Play store, then they're delusional.

Right now, the average Joe can't click a link and install a 3rd party app. Meanwhile, you can install malware from the actual authorised sources, or even just come across a vulnerablity in chrome.

Keeping your devices up to date with security patches will save orders of magnitude more people from malicious software than stopping 3rd party app installation.

I occasionally develop Android apps for myself (mostly out of curiosity and experimentation, but sometimes out of a need for some particular functionality). I'm not going to apply for some developer permit and verification just to do this. I may as well buy a damn iPhone.

[nisegami]

I think we should actively make the web more hostile again.

[const_cast]

Google themselves promotes malware - take a look at the play store. Adware, adware, adware, name meant to confuse people, more adware, probably has a keyloggers, adware adware, probably steals your data, adware adware.

For fucks sake, Meta is at the point they're pulling malware tactics to sell ads.

Circumventing permissions for app to browser talking? Really? FOR ADS? Thats where we're at?

I'm over it. Anyone who thinks this has even the faintest thing to do with malware is legitimately delusional. Not misinformed, delusional.

[buyucu]

Malware is not a huge problem that requires restructuring the entire ecosystem to be closed and authoritarian. Nobody I know has ever had problems with malware or scams on Android.

This has nothing to do with malware, and has everything to do with locking down the Android ecosystem to keep out competitors to Google's services.

[mouse_]

Take away all these freedoms and users will still get scammed. It doesn't help and it's not the real point.

[epolanski]

I know literally 0, 0 people who have installed malwares or had their smartphones hacked in their life times.

The very few I know that have had this happen where all computer users, and virtually all victims of social hacking such as "hey, I'm from IT department, sending you an email, could you please...". A friend of mine exposed sensible data of thousands of customers of her bank like this.

[fimdomeio]

You don't have to prevent root access. You just have to inform user of the risks, void warranties if you want but let users do whatever they want with the hardware that they own.

[quotemstr]

It's amazing how often we hamper the majority of society by protecting the bottom quintile from the consequences of their own mistakes.

[idle_zealot]

That's not what it's ever actually about. You're buying a disingenuous framing that pins blame on the bottom when all these harmful trends come from the top. This isn't to protect grandma, it's to protect Google. This is always what happens when you allow pockets of power with interests misaligned from those of most people. The pockets of power get their way, and people are worse off.

[johncolanduoni]

I have a friend from college who once clicked on a link to download more RAM for his PC. He has a PhD now and deserves it - the PhD just isn’t in anything tech-adjacent. Bottom quintile is a floating signifier.

[bluefirebrand]

Everyone makes mistakes

Protecting the bottom quintile from consequences of thier mistakes also protects everyone else if they ever make those mistakes in a momentary lapse

Maybe society shouldn't be structured in such a way that people have to be constantly hyper vigilant to avoid mistakes with high consequences

[pyrale]

s/the bottom quintile from the consequences of their own mistakes/the top centile from antitrust law/g

[root_axis]

The "bottom quintile"? By what metric?

[isodev]

I see no other way than regulation to force the two to provide drivers and manuals for alternative OS makers.

We should've nipped it with Apple, but there was so much _whatabout_ing that the conversation always go sidetracked with assertions about the free market and what not. It turns out, there is no free market, and we're just living in someone's managed device walled garden.

[dv_dt]

This should be a part of right to repair. The grouping would get more people with common cause together.

[medhir]

100% in alignment with this! Direct quote from the end of the post I linked:

“In the broader conversation of right to repair regulations, we also need to be thinking about a "right to root access" for computing devices.” :)

[wouldbecouldbe]

To be fair to Google, they got so much cricticism for allowing so many spam apps.

[bambax]

Why do we need app stores in the first place?!? No app stores => no vetting, let users download whatever apps they choose, and deal with the consequences.

[preisschild]

Yeah on the play store, nothing wrong with enforcing standards there, but enforcing a monopoly on it changes that.

[rickdeckard]

It's a tricky balance-act to secure their ecosystem.

The more measures they take to secure it while allowing the user to decide whether to participate, the more drastic this opt-out user-decision becomes.

In order to now preserve that "open ecosystem", they would have to provide the user an option to disable Google Services entirely, which would turns the device almost into a separate product

All this is unlikely to happen just for the sake of "pleasing the community", I believe we need a general legally binding definition of what functions the user owns if (and when) a device is stripped of any services on top.

If my car loses functions once it loses connection to the manufacturer, this bare set should be communicated as the purchased value ("in exchange for your money"), separately from any on-top "in exchange for your data" business-model

[mdp2021]

> they got so much

And get judged for their reactions, as is proper procedure.

Why am I reading today articles that present an apocalypse without clearly specifying if there is a "way out OS flag" (allow installation of unverified APK)?

[paaradise]

> we will be confirming who the developer is, not reviewing the content of their app or where it came from.

What is the point of that? Then app content is the problem.

Ideally if they setup manual review then it would resolve some issues.

[raxxorraxor]

Very true and this was predictable. That said, I haven't installed any apps for months now since I don't consider Android to be a usable OS anymore. It could be technically, but I have no will to fight Google and manufacturers on their lock down ambitions.

Ironically that degraded phones to be just that. Phones with build-in high quality cameras. For everything else there are better alternatives.

[chneu]

You can't steal something if you can't own it.

[qiine]

so we are doomed? since people don't even really get why right to repair is important this kind of concepts fly way above the head of most peoples..

[sepeth]

This is why I believe GPL v3 is important.

[aakast]

Sure. You will have the right to root, unless on a device with a locked bootloader. /s

Lets just call it what it is and what we all want. "The right to modify". It doesn't give you the right to copy, so it will never break any law protecting intellectual property.

[coldtea]

You'll own nothing (not even your digital assets) and be happy!

[paulcole]

> Every day we stray farther from the premise that we should be allowed to install / modify software on the computers we own.

I’ve never agreed with this premise.

I buy things that mostly meet my needs and desires in every other walk of life. I’m personally OK with extending this to computers as well.

[garciansmith]

That doesn't make sense. How do meet your own needs and desires if you can't use your own property the way you want?

And isn't the point in this very situation that people simply can't buy what they want because Google and Apple are a duopoly and now Google is going to follow the path of restricting what you can do with your own property?

[gf000]

This is based on the false assumption that the free market solves every problem.

But the reality (which was correctly identified by Adam Smith himself) is that the effort required to enter a market can sometimes be so high, that we practically end up with oligopolies, see mobile OSs. They require a network effect to make sense, so the entry cost is not just developing the product, but also to somehow convince basically every other player to consider you a target platform - which is a cyclical problem that you can't just bootstrap yourself into. Even Microsoft failed at it, even though they were paying hefty sums to companies for apps working on their OS.

[adithyassekhar]

Ok I'll bite. Tell me what you find appealing about losing authority? Is this some kind of emotional response for not wanting to take responsibility?

[protocolture]

My needs and desires are to have control over my tech stack.

[johnnienaked]

Are you intentionally defending a rent-economy or just ignorantly?