[Silhouette]

You probably don't want a system where all the hardware and software for controlling mobile radios is readily accessible to and modifiable by anyone. You might think you do, but the first time you try to call an emergency service and you can't get through because one idiot somewhere in range of the same base station has screwed up his debugging code and jammed a control channel, you'll change your mind.

I've been the guy who drives around in a truck with a lot of mobile scanning equipment to try and figure out where the rogue device is. There is no magic button like in the movies, where they can immediately triangulate the source of the interference to within a 5 cubic metre box. You basically have to rely on simple physics and boots on the ground. The device you're hunting for isn't playing nicely, so any assumptions you could normally make based on things like which base stations it's in contact with won't necessarily be valid. Things are a bit smarter in modern networks than they were back when I worked in the field, but physics is still physics.

In short, there is a legitimate justification, born of experience, for every telecommunications regulatory authority in the known universe requiring this stuff to be certified before you can legally use it. This is also why in some jurisdictions agents acting for telecommunications regulators have certain legal rights to access private property.

Of course this only affects the radio equipment. I see no reason it should be necessary or possible for such software to have any control over other integrated peripherals such as cameras, speakers, microphones or local storage. And the primary concern is people who could modify the code and break the network, not preventing any legitimate audit to prove that devices are only doing what they say they're doing.

[drcube]

The FCC already regulates who can broadcast what over the airwaves. And if you're not licensed for that part of the spectrum, the source code will do you a fat lot of good with your radio experimentation.

Nobody is asking for some sort of hacker radio anarchy, here. They're asking to see the source code for machines they own, machines that reside in their pockets, machines that are responsible for storing and communicating their most sensitive personal data.

[superuser2]

If you cause the device you own to operate according to your own will (i.e. the core concept of FOSS) instead of the will of the carrier, there is a strong likelihood it will cause a denial or degradation of service for everyone else.

Verizon has the right to transmit on spectrum allocated to it using consumer devices as its agents. It employs engineers and QA processes to make sure that any device transmitting on its spectrum plays well with others before it is allowed to leave RF-isolated testing facilities.

The public does not and should not have the right to transmit on Verizon's spectrum, even using devices they own which are legally and technically capable, except according to Verizon's carefully vetted programming. If they were able to run their own radio firmware, you'd have the situation described in the parent.

Cellular radios necessarily cannot be open source. The source could be released for inspection and audit, but it cannot be possible or permissible for you to run modified source on "your" radios.

[emhs]

> The source could be released for inspection and audit,

Dude, that's exactly what he asked for.

[superuser2]

Open source encompasses permission to modify and redistribute. Disclosed source != open source, which is what was advocated upthread.

Parent claimed that modifying the source wouldn't hurt anything since your phone can't transmit in ways you're not licensed to, but this is incorrect.

[emhs]

Open source != free (libre) baseband hardware that you can directly modify the software on. Being able to compile and modify is fine and has no impact on the network if you're not able to run it on the primary network.