[bzzzt]

Even if it's illegal? (like transmitting on forbidden frequencies)

It's not always the user who's installing software. Lots of people depend on other people to manage their devices. Manufacturers like the hardware they delivered to be trusted so users trust it regardless of who handled it.

[AshamedCaptain]

I always hear as the excuse but it is ridiculous. If the user wants to transmit on "illegal" frequencies, all he has to do is to change the country setting in their Wi-Fi router, et voilà, illegal transmissions.

The entire Android OS has about as much access to radios than your average PC, if not less. In fact, even on recent android devices, wireless modems still tend to show up to the OS as serial devices speaking AT (hayes) (even if the underlying transport isn't, or even if the baseband is in the same chip). Getting them to transmit illegal frequencies is as much easy or hard as is getting a 4G USB adapter to do it.

[sam_lowry_]

At least in EU, transmitting is illegal, having hardware to transmit is not.

That's why people can buy TX/RX SDRs and Yaesu transceivers without a license.

AFAIK the radioamateur world, serious violations of frequency plans are rare and are usually quickly handled by regulators. OTOH, everyone is slightly illegal, e.g. transmitting encrypted texts or overpowering their rigs, but that's part of the fun.

[jjkaczor]

And in some locations, quickly handled by the local amateur community, with foxhunts and community outreach to frequency violators - only getting regulators involved when just talking to the offenders fails.

[goku12]

> Even if it's illegal? (like transmitting on forbidden frequencies)

That's not relevant here. If frequencies are illegal, it should be impossible to program it in such a way. But even otherwise, it's the responsibility of the user to follow local laws. If I have a PTT phone, it's not legal for me to use forbidden frequencies just because it's possible. Why do these manufacturers care about what doesn't concern them when they violate even bigger laws all the time?

> It's not always the user who's installing software. Lots of people depend on other people to manage their devices.

That should be up to the user. Here we are talking about users who want to decide for themselves what their device does. You're talking as if giving the user that choice is the injustice. Nope. Taking away the choice is.

> Manufacturers like the hardware they delivered to be trusted so users trust it regardless of who handled it.

I see what you did here. But here is the thing. Securing a device is not antithetical to the user's freedom. That was what secure boot chain was originally supposed to accomplish until Microsoft managed to corrupt it into a tool for usurping control from the user.

Manufacturer trust is a farce. They should be deligating that trust to the user upon the sale of the device, through well proven concepts as explained above. They chose to distrust the user instead. Why? Greed!

[bzzzt]

> If frequencies are illegal, it should be impossible to program it in such a way.

You know there's a very fine line between hardware and software in this case so you're actually advocating for drm like control here.

> They should be deligating that trust to the user upon the sale of the device, through well proven concepts as explained above.

That same user who forgets passwords and recovery keys all the time and loses all access to documents when a device breaks? And you're presuming giving that kind of person who doesn't understand sh*t about backups, device security etc full access to their devices will not result in a lot of compromised devices?

I'm not sure manufacturers are the best party to trust but they have an interest in a secure reputation, which the majority of dumb users or eavesdropping governments do not have.

> They chose to distrust the user instead. Why? Greed!

There are more reasons to distrust the user. I don't buy greed is the only relevant one.

[goku12]

> so you're actually advocating for drm like control here.

Absolutely not. I'm saying that the hardware shouldn't have that capability at all in the first place. But whatever. Don't restrict it. Those functionalities are usually under the control of the kernel. If the user is smart enough to tinker with the subsystems at that level, they're also smart enough to deal with the consequences of its misuse. That isn't a good justification to just lock down devices like this. The harm that comes out of that is much worse than what anyone can do with an RF baseband chip.

> That same user who forgets passwords and recovery keys all the time and loses all access to documents when a device breaks? And you're presuming giving that kind of person who doesn't understand sh*t about backups, device security etc full access to their devices will not result in a lot of compromised devices?

Yeah, so? It's not like such a person is ever going to unlock a complex safety lock. Examples for that exist already. Who can sideload an app into a fresh Android device without enabling the developer mode and then installing the APK through ADB? Dumb users won't ever persist enough to reach there. To take it further, the user can be given the root key to the secure boot chain on a piece of paper with the explicit instruction to not share it with anyone or even use it if they don't know how to. Ordinary users can then go on about their day as if it is fully locked down. It's unfair to deny the control of the device to the smart user, when such a security is possible. The existence of a dumb user is not an excuse to lock out smart users.

> but they have an interest in a secure reputation, which the majority of dumb users or eavesdropping governments do not have.

I guess you haven't seen the spyware that OEMs ship with the android devices. Even Samsung is notorious for it - especially on their smart TVs. I'm not going to talk at all about the Chinese OEMs. For that matter, it's very hard for a normal user to even uninstall facebook - an app that's known to collect information from the device that it doesn't need. Manufacturers caring for their security reputation was some 20 years ago. Only Apple does it these days, just because it's their highlight feature. But even they tried once to ship off images on the phone to iCloud without the users' permission to 'check it for csam'. The rest treat it like a portable spying device on steroids.

> There are more reasons to distrust the user. I don't buy greed is the only relevant one.

Trusting the user isn't the manufacturer's prerogative. It's supposed to be the user's property once they pay for it. You are insisting on the manufacturer retaining control even afterwards - something I and many others vehemently oppose as unfair and scummy. Now if you are worried about the security reputation, proven methods exist that allow the smart users to take full control of the device while preventing regular users from shooting their own foot. But OEMs and their apologists pretend that the problem is entirely on the user side and the only solution is to lock it down in a block of glue. And there is one good reason for this ignorance, oversight and denial - greed. Retaining control over the end device forever allows them to squeeze users for their every last penny. I will need another epic post just to enumerate the ways in which the control over the end devices allows them to do so. But I'm not going to do that because HN has entire stories and discussions on each of those topics.

[Ajedi32]

Especially if it's illegal (like speaking against the government, in some countries).

Maybe this is a bit of a hot take, but I think any government that has the ability to absolutely prevent people from breaking the law is a government with far too much power. I'm all in favor of law enforcement, but at some point it starts to cross over the line from enforcement to violation of people's free will.