As a lawmaker, I would grant the right to root.

Smartphone and computer manufacturers must not take measures to block users from rooting their devices.

You do realise this has security implications?

@hjk101 Security implications of users being able to do what they want with the hardware they paid for? Why are we allowed to use root access on the desktop then?

@hjk101 it does, it implies that cybersecurity should get its shit together and improve the difference between the capabilities of an authorized user and an attacker instead of removing capabilities from the attacker by removing capabilities altogether.

@lorentz Well said, sir!

@hjk101 more security implications than "letting a huge, faceless corporation with dubious moral standings install/uninstall whatever they want on your device whenever they want"?

@gemsy we aren't in secure environments.
You only need it if you are an admin. Thing is most people are admins without realising and they is why people get fucked all the time on desktop, not so frequently on phones.
Least privilege applies.

But perhaps I misunderstood the OP. I've only used android devices that can be unlocked in bootloader but can't just have root access with the greatest ease so scammers/hackers can't take advantage of less tech savvy. I thought it was a demand to have something like that because I think it's reasonable that there are constraints like a full wipe to gain root access.

@hjk101 One day letting someone unknown use your phone will be as unreasonable as letting someone unknown use your car. Even old people wouldn't lend a car to a stranger. And if they would, they shouldn't have a car.

I actually think the main barrier for rooting is the legality of root checks. Taking risks with one's own property including bank accounts should be an inalienable right and the blurry line of responsibility should lie in the level of information and the privileges a provider can tie to voluntary invasive security measures such as a root check or trusted vendor checks.

much like personal information trading, I think insurance should be something users must have the option to reject.

@hjk101 it does not have any meaningful security implications

sounds like nonsense

it might have liability implications for the company but those are easily dealt with, in the sense if you root you are your own security and the company is not liable for that security anymore

either case the company has access to your computer so the hackers will too. the company has less incentive to make sure you don't get hacked than you do. the company is a GREAT target for a hacker because all their systems are normalized so if you crack their access you crack access to everyone on their hardware, whereas in an environment of freedom individuals will do esoteric things so you can't just PWN everyone at once like hitting the biggest gold vein ever

companies lie about hacks all the time as well, they will deny liability and fault for obvious reasons. it doesn't matter to them if you got hacked, only that they can blame someone else or otherwise bury it so their reputation isn't touched