undefined

points

[-]

I just don't get why we need to argue about something — the right to general purpose computing — which has been answered decades ago?

The user must be the administrator of their own device. Whether that's a laptop, desktop, PDA, mp3-player, smartphone, tablet, cyberdeck, netbook, or any other kind of computing device.

The user must be able to overrule any and all decisions. That's the definition of ownership.

Like, this was the reason why GNU was founded, and before that was the plot of the movie TRON.

by Arnt1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

We're still arguing for several reasons, one of them is that people still confuse the user with the owner, as you do. "The user must be able to override" is implies that if you have physical access to someone's phone, you can install a keylogger before handing the phone back its owner. Nice for you but I imagine the owner might still quibble, even if you quote TRON.

by kuschku50 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

If I hand my windows laptop to someone, they can also install a keylogger.

But no one said we have to copy that flawed concept. macOS and Linux already have a good solution, requiring your full unlock password in a privileged dialog to authorize changes.

It's ridiculous that changing the settings on my device is protected 10× more than transferring all my money to a random person.

by HybridStatAnim81 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Being the administrator and being able to sidestep OS protections are not the same thing. Without root, the user is in control of what application does what and how. With root, the user is not. Root is not freedom or ownership, like many try to claim. Root is a hacky shortcut to proper functionality. You can build and sign the OS with your own keys, without undermining the security of your device, and adding whatever functionality you want with the principle of least privilege.

Its really funny because Tron, or at least Tron Legacy, is a great example of why godhood is dangerous and why a user and a program having root access is catastrophic.

by kuschku1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Being an administrator is being root. That's the entire point. That whatever restrictions an app has set, I can override it if I need to.

> You can build and sign the OS with your own keys, without undermining the security of your device, and adding whatever functionality you want with the principle of least privilege.

Building a version of the OS and flashing that removes everything currently on the device.

So if I ever need to overrule a restriction an app has set, I must have already granted myself the power to do so ahead of time.

Which means there are only two viable paths forward:

1. If I assume that software is perfect, and I will never need to overrule a restriction software sets, I can use stock Android or Graphene OS

2. If I assume that at some point in the future I might someday need to overrule any restriction, I must grant myself root permissions from the start.

Also, I don't need to grant root permissions to random apps.

All that's needed is for the adb and the native file manager to be able to enter sudo mode and read any file, so that in worst case I can always pull all data off the device, and flash a version of the OS with my changes instead.

If we want to go one step further, and want to apply the practical definition of the FSF rights of free software, you should also be able to replace any file using the builtin file manager in sudo mode.

by HybridStatAnim86 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

You dont have the ability to guarantee you have overridden anything. The integrity of the OS cannot be verified and anything with root can lie to you that it was revoked. It does not put power in your hands.

Installing your own build does wipe the device when you unlock the bootloader, yes, but updating it with a locked bootloader does not. It would be a one time transfer if you have official images already installed.

Your paths forward are a false dichotomy. These are not the only 2 options. You can simply update your build with the changes you want.

The randomness of an app is irrelevant and apps need to jump through significantly less loops to obtain root access without your input. And even if they didnt do that, and you permitted root instead, the app can lie about you revoking it later in either case.

This is blind ideology over safety and real ownership. Root is a hacky shortcut for proper functionality, and is not a prerequisite to ownership in the slightest.