this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
399 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
60578 readers
3640 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is simply incorrect. Implementing a lock on a bootloader is not dissimilar to a lock on your house. A person breaking in doesn't care that they are breaking the law, they just need to find the how of breaking in. If I as a consumer want to enter my house or give a copy of my key to someone else as a backup I should be able to do so. If I want to leave my door unlocked I should have that right however foolhardy it is. And when it comes to locking the bootloader of a computer most people won't notice it in general use but that isn't the point. It is about the edge cases, the end of life for the device, the lack of security updates.
To expand on this analogy: Your (mobile) computer is your property, you shouldn't be treated as if it was only a flat for rent.
The locked bootloader is having a lock at all. Without that, anyone can enter at any time.
In reality, home door locks are merely suggestions, they're trivially picked or broken open, windows can be entered through. But if you DID have a secure building, you wouldn't want any of the security systems to be replaced.
You get full access to operate in a secure building once you've used the key/biometrics/passwords/interrogation. You don't have access to replace the locks with tinkertoy homebrew shit, because we know that's not as competent.
I disagree. The current setup is like having the real estate have a key and you have a swipe card. The swipe card let's you into parts of the house but you don't have access to the basement or electrical box. If you wanted access to those you could ask but the real estate basically says no unless they really messed up, and even then they send a tradesperson to do the work and give them the key. If that tradespersons loses the key or gives it to someone else the real estate shrugs and says "What do you want us to do about it? Security is hard."
They also have a contract for all the furniture, most of which is bolted down, so you can't even rearrange your house, let alone install a hand rail in the bathroom for your disabled brother who needs support getting in and out. You also can't install anything on the walls like a TV or a picture frame, and attempting to do so would lead to the possibility of piercing a pipe or cutting a wire in the wall because you don't have schematics.
You can't put a different OS on, you can't modify the one you have, and breaking any of the protections on software is a violation of the DMCA, so you are a renter. You rent the device, they control the features, they decide what parts are available to the public (usually none), they decide when it will be end of life, and they make it very technically difficult to repair anything by using parts pairing. If they sold the device as a subscription with hardware upgrades included, repairs included, ongoing support included, then maybe locking it down would be OK, but otherwise no, it is unreasonable and I don't think we really own our devices in a meaningful sense.