[JeremyNT]

> If you tamper with the device it's your responsibility, innit? It's not like they disabled a properly functioning device that uses the original firmware with an OTA update

And more to the point, Samsung is under no obligation to allow bootloader unlocking at all, much less ensure that it continues to provide any specific set of functionality.

The alternative here isn't "Samsung stops disabling the camera when the bootloader is unlocked," it's "Samsung stops allowing bootloader unlock."

This is always the game with Android phones - you have to do your research to understand whether you can install your own software on them, and what might be lost if you do so. If you don't want a bunch of headaches, just buy a Pixel series straight from Google.

[sudosysgen]

It's not up to Samsung to allow bootloader unlock or not. There will be exploits that will allow for a bootloader unlock or worse unless they allow for it.

Besides, we don't have to be happy with the status quo, we can legislate for bootloader unlocking to be allowed.

[JeremyNT]

> Besides, we don't have to be happy with the status quo, we can legislate for bootloader unlocking to be allowed

Unfortunately, that's not the world we actually live in. This thread is in response to the (great?) grandparent who suggested:

> On the surface this seems blatantly illegal: after the sale is made the no-longer-owner removes functionality

Our governments may theoretically have the power to force vendors to provide functionality like this to end users, but it's hard to imagine that actually happening (can you imagine how hard Apple would lobby against unlocking iPhones, for example?).

The only thing we can do is stop buying devices from vendors who exhibit such user-hostile behaviors.