←back to thread

Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

(shkspr.mobi)
205 points ColinWright | 2 comments | 30 Aug 25 12:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.403s | source
Show context
anfilt ◴[31 Aug 25 08:49 UTC] No.45081577[source]▶
The owner of a device should have the final say. The way a lot of this is set up basically deprives the owner of one of their core property rights, in particular the right of exclusion. Instead, in many systems the decision about what software to include or exclude is made cryptographically by a third party rather than by the device’s owner. I don’t think we should support limiting people’s property rights for “safety” or other reasons. iOS is probably one the worst in this regard and it sad to see android moving more and more towards this direction.

I have posted multiple times before that this effectively limits people’s property rights. Here are some other posts I have made on the subject:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39349288

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236853

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35067455

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727203

replies(3): >>45082440 #>>45082499 #>>45082521 #
1. BLKNSLVR ◴[31 Aug 25 11:45 UTC] No.45082440[source]▶
> The owner of a device

That may be the crux of the misunderstanding. The 'licensing' of music, movies, TV shows when you "purchase" them is coming / has come to hardware.

The owner of the device is who controls what you can do with it, not necessarily who paid to keep it in their pocket.

replies(1): >>45084238 #
2. anfilt ◴[31 Aug 25 16:08 UTC] No.45084238[source]▶
What I am saying is the way the cryptography is implemented on locked devices such as iPhone your property rights are being trampled upon via cryptography. By using cryptography, the manufacturer reserves for itself; rather than the owner; the fundamental right to exclude or include what software can run on the CPU, even after the hardware is sold. The cryptography is not a legal agreement either like a lease/loan ect... So this being done via extra-legal means.

For example, let’s say you buy an iDevice and do not even intend to run iOS, but instead want to install/port Linux, or run some bare-metal code. You would have to ask apple to sign that code with their private key, which they won't do. The problem is a sale should have transferred all rights of property rights to you as part of the sale. The clue is you have to ask a third party to even hope to do this points to the fact your being limited on the full enjoyment of your property rights. This cryptography is not a contract or legal instrument either and you don't even have to agree to anything for it to be in effect. You could buy the device and have no intention to use the preinstalled software, and it's in effect before you even open the box.

The problem is the right of exclusion is very important, and can even derive most other property rights for example this paper "Property and the Right to Exclude" [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf]. The fact such an important property right is being blatantly impeded is the problem.