• rowinxavier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    This is simply incorrect. Implementing a lock on a bootloader is not dissimilar to a lock on your house. A person breaking in doesn’t care that they are breaking the law, they just need to find the how of breaking in. If I as a consumer want to enter my house or give a copy of my key to someone else as a backup I should be able to do so. If I want to leave my door unlocked I should have that right however foolhardy it is. And when it comes to locking the bootloader of a computer most people won’t notice it in general use but that isn’t the point. It is about the edge cases, the end of life for the device, the lack of security updates.

    • Digital Mark@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The locked bootloader is having a lock at all. Without that, anyone can enter at any time.

      In reality, home door locks are merely suggestions, they’re trivially picked or broken open, windows can be entered through. But if you DID have a secure building, you wouldn’t want any of the security systems to be replaced.

      You get full access to operate in a secure building once you’ve used the key/biometrics/passwords/interrogation. You don’t have access to replace the locks with tinkertoy homebrew shit, because we know that’s not as competent.

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      To expand on this analogy: Your (mobile) computer is your property, you shouldn’t be treated as if it was only a flat for rent.