Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

On the one hand, you could argue that this is not a good thing because the hardware is fundamentally buggy. On the other hand, and this may be a bit of a contrarian view, if it leads to "the insecurity that gives us freedom", maybe it's not all so bad after all... although in this case, it might be too much of a free-for-all. But given how locked-down mobile devices are by default, this almost feels like a breath of fresh air.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html

View on HN

nullc makes a similar comment below.

I had thought this was too obvious to bother pointing out, but no, root exploits are not a good thing. The reason phones use kernel sandboxing is to allow users to install apps and have confidence the permissions granted mean something. A root exploit means any app or update you install may turn the phone into spyware, a portable bug-in-your-pocket.

The number of users who care about that is measured in billions (all phone users). The number of phone users who care about getting a root shell for their own use is vanishingly small, especially as people who care about that buy phones like the Nexus that have unlocked bootloaders anyway.

So no - this sort of exploit is pretty damn bad. The number of people hurt is multiple orders of magnitude higher than the number of people "helped", where that "help" is extremely tenuous anyway.

> The number of phone users who care about getting a root shell for their own use is vanishingly small

Only a very small number of people care about how /any/ individual piece of technology could be improved, they have have other things to think about. That is a not a valid argument. It would be better to have it by some other means to get root, but it's not as simple as you make it out. Show a user 2 otherwise identical phones, explain that on one phone, they could do things like tethering, and on the other phone, it's restricted because they can't get root, they will choose the one where they can get root.

IMHO the better answer is "buy/recommend phones from manufacturers who give you root access, instead of giving business to companies making vulnerable devices where you can use those vulnerabilities to get root"

However, when presented with the full story (you can get tethering on this phone, but at the cost of security; you can get security on another phone, but at the cost of tethering; and you can get both tethering and security on this third phone, but at a higher price), enough people will opt for option three as to make it at least meaningful to the market, despite those who don't care about security.

Tethering and root access are unconnected: my phone can tether and is unrooted. Maybe if you get your phone from a US carrier these things are related, in which case, buy elsewhere?

There really aren't any reasons to try and root an Android phone. If you want to replace the OS with some custom open source build, just use a phone with an unlocked bootloader and go wild. But you can already access so many features and customise so many things without root it hardly seems worth it.

But thats his point exactly - one of the phones allows him to get over customer hostile limitations of some corporation and makes his device more useful in his life. The other is controlled by a whim of somoeone who sees you just as a walking wallet.

If the carrier is giving you the device on better terms than an outright purchase then it's not "customer hostile" is it? You can always buy one instead.

Your attitude seems to be "I should be able to get a cheap phone from a carrier by agreeing not to tether, and then I should be able to violate that agreement anyway, and this is a totally moral position". Phones are a commodity. You can get them anywhere. Want to tether? Buy a phone and a plan that allows it. Problem solved.

No, my attitude is "I should be able to do with my 5GB dataplan whatever I wish because that's what I pay for and the carrier has no business dictating why my hardware can or cannot do.". And since I live in EU that is an actual reality - my carrier provides the voice and data service and my phone does what I tell it to and I can choose whichever phone I want. Free market as it should be.

Which is why it baffles me beyond all limits just why so many smart Americans go out of their way to defend corporate practices that hurt them as customers.

Read your contract. You don't pay for a "5GB data plan". You pay for a "5GB data plan to be used on your mobile only". Violating your contract is not "free market".

Again, I'm not from America. My contract does not say anything so idiotic. I can use my paid data as I wish.

Why are you trying so hard to support your telcos decision to make your life worse?

I'm not from the US either. And those policies are there to reduce congestion, that's all.

"reduce congestion" is just a weasel way of saying that the providers sell beyond their capacity. I understand overbooking is a very common practice, but it is based on risk assessment -- and providers shouldn't be able to dodge all risk for their decision by disavowing their responsibility in single-sided "contracts".

Yes, of course they sell beyond their capacity. This is the real world we live in.

If everybody in your neighbourhood turned their faucets on at once, water supply would simply stop working. So?

Nice straw man you have there "If everybody in your neighbourhood turned their faucets on at once, water supply would simply stop working. So?"

What does "to be used on your mobile only" even mean? Does it mean you can't transfer any data downloaded on the phone to anywhere else? That's ridiculous. Or perhaps it means the connection must be via your phone, which is definitely the case if you are tethering. A data plan is an Internet connection. However you look at it, it's a gross violation of net neutrality principles to say what you can or cannot do with the data transferred through it.

It means what you know it means.

I'm not American, I'm European, so you're really putting the ass in assume there. And frankly the moralising so many Europeans are so quick to engage in is an embarrassment.

This really isn't complicated. If your carrier contract doesn't forbid tethering but they sold you a phone that does, take it up with them, that sounds messed up and rare. If your contract forbids tethering then you're just trying to weasel your way out of a market you voluntarily entered in to. That's the opposite of the free market.

Parent is just pointing out the BS in hindering tethering based on the amount of data and how well the customers are protected in EU regarding such practices. It's also absurd (perhaps a bit sad) to defend such policies from the point of the customer to your own loss.

They are not exactly unconnected. Unrestricted root access would let you set up your own iptables rules and direct packets to the cellular network. This is how tethering worked on rooted phones before the carriers offered it as a service.

Now you are correct, and carriers responded to those demands from users for mobile networking with (usually metered or priced as an addon) "mobile hotspot" applications.

Contrary to your earlier claims, the advanced Android and iPhone user communities are not insignificant and may have played a part in getting demands like these met.

Places like androidpolice, and sites like engadget, lifehacks, gizmodo and others cater to this market, and drive popular knowledge of root modifications and jail breaking. Previous incarnations of Cyanogenmod boasted large numbers of downloads in the 100s of thousands if not millions.

you're taking most out of thin air.

let's see: device that sells the free-to-root marketing (even being a lie in this case), Nexus: billions of sales.

device that boast root to be impossible, blackberry: zero sales

lol. downvote facts. go hackernews!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com