Re:Right to Root Access
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Monday January 13, 2025 @12:14PM
(#42685803)
"The reason that computers are locked down by the vendors is not that computers are somehow more dangerous than other things we buy "
It makes sense to allow the _buyer_ to responsibly lock out others. This is common in other products that could be dangerous. But allowing the _seller_ to lock out others, e.g., competitors or the buyer, is a recipe for malfeasance, at the buyer's expense. Interestingly, with computers and pre-installed software, there is no option to lock out the sellers such as Apple or the companies that partner with sellers and pre-install software on the computers, such as Microsoft, Google, etc.
"It's all about protecting their profits, not protecting us."
It is interesting that the "protections" are not optional. It assumed _every_ buyer wants the protections from others _and also from themselves_ enabled by default, and also for protections from so-called "tech" companies to be _disabled_ by default. A remarkable coincidence.
Perhaps if buyers were given the option to login as single user and change the default protections some (not all) might disable phoning home to Silicon Valley or Redmond. They might block unwanted access to their computers by so-called "tech" companies who sell them out as ad targets. The so-called "tech" companies and their customers (advertisers) from other peoples' computers might be locked out.
Indeed letting buyers lock out whomever they choose might diminish the profits of so-called "tech" companies.
In the past HN commenters often sidestepped the question of these "protections" as self-serving and argued that so-called "tech" companies serve the "majority" of computer users and in fact these "protections" are what computer users want even though these users were never asked or given the choice to opt-out. If that were true then allowing a "minority" of users to control the protections themselves, i.e., operate as root, would only affect a minority of profits.
It makes sense to allow the _buyer_ to responsibly lock out others. This is common in other products that could be dangerous. But allowing the _seller_ to lock out others, e.g., competitors or the buyer, is a recipe for malfeasance, at the buyer's expense. Interestingly, with computers and pre-installed software, there is no option to lock out the sellers such as Apple or the companies that partner with sellers and pre-install software on the computers, such as Microsoft, Google, etc.
"It's all about protecting their profits, not protecting us."
It is interesting that the "protections" are not optional. It assumed _every_ buyer wants the protections from others _and also from themselves_ enabled by default, and also for protections from so-called "tech" companies to be _disabled_ by default. A remarkable coincidence.
Perhaps if buyers were given the option to login as single user and change the default protections some (not all) might disable phoning home to Silicon Valley or Redmond. They might block unwanted access to their computers by so-called "tech" companies who sell them out as ad targets. The so-called "tech" companies and their customers (advertisers) from other peoples' computers might be locked out.
Indeed letting buyers lock out whomever they choose might diminish the profits of so-called "tech" companies.
In the past HN commenters often sidestepped the question of these "protections" as self-serving and argued that so-called "tech" companies serve the "majority" of computer users and in fact these "protections" are what computer users want even though these users were never asked or given the choice to opt-out. If that were true then allowing a "minority" of users to control the protections themselves, i.e., operate as root, would only affect a minority of profits.