Right to root access
Debate over a proposed “right to root access” pits user control of owned devices against locked‑down ecosystems marketed as safer and more convenient. Supporters argue that being able to unlock bootloaders, replace firmware, and bypass attestation is a natural extension of property and repair rights, reduces e‑waste, and guards against corporate and state lock‑in. Opponents worry that broad root access would fuel malware, weaken protections for non‑technical users and banking apps, and say consumers already express their preferences through buying iPhones, Androids, or niche open hardware.
Scope of “right to root” and ownership
- Many argue that if you own a computing device, you should be able to run any software on it, including replacing the OS and firmware.
- Others counter that vendors have no obligation to support or expose root; they can sell “appliance-like” devices as long as this is disclosed.
- Several posts tie root to property rights (right to exclude, right to repair), claiming locked bootloaders effectively mean you don’t fully own the device.
- Some suggest legal protections should also restrict “fake ownership” models (perpetual licenses, rentals) that sidestep these rights.
Security, malware, and threat models
- One camp worries that easy rooting massively increases malware, stalkerware, scams, and physical attacks (e.g., customs, police, thieves altering firmware).
- Others say this is overblown: desktop OSes have long allowed admin/root, and security can be preserved via encryption, user-controlled locks, and good OS design.
- Debate over whether bootloader unlocking actually weakens security if it forces a full wipe and shows visible warning states.
- Hardware enclaves / TEEs are highlighted as a deeper loss of control: even with root, keys and some code remain outside user reach.
Vendor lock-in, attestation, and app restrictions
- Many complain that banking, DRM, and government apps refuse to run on rooted or custom ROM devices, and that hardware attestation increasingly enforces this.
- Some defend app vendors’ right to refuse “insecure” platforms; others note this is often inconsistent and anti-competitive, not genuinely about security.
- Remote attestation and TEEs are seen as tools that can be used for anti-user measures (blocking VPNs, enforcing national ID apps, killing FOSS OSes).
Consumer choice vs regulation
- One side: locked and unlocked devices should coexist; if you want openness, buy open hardware or Android; if you want “can’t be messed with,” buy iOS.
- Other side: market isn’t really offering that choice—unlockable devices are shrinking, duopolies and network effects dominate, and regulation is needed.
- Skeptics doubt political feasibility (even net neutrality is hard) and warn poorly scoped laws could kill general-purpose computing or be easy to evade.
E‑waste, longevity, and sustainability
- Locked devices that can’t be repurposed after support ends are criticized as avoidable e‑waste.
- Examples: phones, TVs, Sonos-like gear, and auto “Car Thing” style devices that become bricks.
- Some point to thriving hacking communities around abandoned hardware as proof of the value of openness, and argue open devices are essential for true sustainability.
Implementation ideas
- Common proposals:
- Bootloader unlock requiring full wipe and explicit, non-trivial consent.
- Hardware switches, internal jumpers, or screws to enable “developer mode,” possibly visibly tamper-evident.
- Ability to add your own keys then re-lock, preserving secure boot but under owner control.
- Disagreement remains on whether certain classes (implants, cars, critical infrastructure) should be treated as exceptions or strengthened examples of the same right.