this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
604 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

73534 readers
3276 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Samsung has decided to proceed with the Bootloader blocking also in Europe, a move that has caused a lot of discussion. Behind this choice is a European regulation that will come into force in August 2025 and which risks changing smartphone usage in Europe forever. This is why other manufacturers may soon follow suit.

From 1 August 2025, new provisions will come into force RED Directive (Radio Equipment Directive), which redefines the compliance requirements for all radio devices sold in Europe. This is a significant change, not so much for the amount of regulations introduced, but for the effect they will have on the entire Android ecosystem. The issue revolves around three articles that impose specific protections: against network interference, personal data compromise, and digital fraud. These are, in themselves, sacrosanct rules.

But the crux comes with the interpretation prevailingEach device must ensure full compliance not only with the hardware, but also with the software that controls the radio modules. This is where the bootloader comes in. Unlocking it essentially allows you to replace the original operating system with an alternative one, such as LineageOS or GrapheneOS.

But these systems, if they modify the radio drivers even minimally, invalidate the CE certification. An uncertified device can no longer be legally marketed or used, at least according to the most stringent reading of the law.

This scenario has therefore led Samsung to protect its devices. Not on a whim, but to avoid any software modifications falling under your legal liability. If a user installs a ROM that interferes with radio frequencies or compromises communications security, the manufacturer (and in some cases the importer) may be held directly liable.

RED does not explicitly talk about unlocking the Bootloader or custom ROM, but it opens one regulatory space in which the margins for maneuver are they narrow. And in doing so, it provides a solid argument for those who have been trying for years to close the loop between hardware, software, and services. After all, customizing the operating system also means breaking away from proprietary services and, therefore, from the model that ties the user to the brand.

Samsung is just the first to move, but it's hard to imagine it will be the only one. Starting in August 2025, it's very likely that other manufacturers will follow suit, at least for the European market.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MTK@lemmy.world 18 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I hate the fact that the more technologically literate you are, the more you run away from it.

A smartphone with latest android, Gemini, google pay, a smartwatch, ChatGPT and a smart home?

Nope, I would rather have a Linux phone that is mostly incompatible with what is expected of modern smartphones, no AI please! Google pay? Only cash or monero! My watch is very smart, it can telle the time for a few years without a recharge, and nothing else!

[–] mal3oon@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Luckily now, the hardware is advanced enough that a linux phone is on the edge of being viable. If I can't unlock a bootloader and compile my own android rom, I won't be using Android. What's interesting the open source alternative, like fdroid is really fully replacing the play store for me.

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

I am currently on Android as well, but in recent months with more and more OEMs disabling unlocking the bootloader, and google somewhat abandoning AOSP, it seriously seems like my next phone would be a Linux one, which is cool but it sucks.

[–] kepix@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

"This scenario has therefore led Samsung to protect its devices."

oh golly, poor korean mafia.

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 15 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Has anyone verified what this article says?

Here's the directive in question: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/53/oj/eng It doesn't seem to imply what the article implies.

Also, here are some things from the discussion on HN

As is usual, there seems to be a massive misunderstanding what the directive is and means. The TLDR is that the directive contains no clauses that compels phone makers to keep the Android bootloader locked or that forbids EU users from unlocking it.

Samsung's public reasoning might be that disabling unlocking the bootloader because of the directive, but there is nothing in the directive that forces them to lock the bootloader. It does sound like a convenient scapegoat if they don't want to talk about the real reasons though.

The phone makes who end up disabling the unlocking of bootloaders are all doing so on their own accord, not because some regulation is forcing them to.

Finally, the EU’s broader right-to-repair policies makes it kind of impossible that an outright prohibition of unlocking the bootloader could happen. But of course, nuance doesn't make people click article titles on the web...

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

I think it's Samsung that interpreted the rule at their advantage in a way that sends more devices to the landfill

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

If a user installs a ROM that interferes with radio frequencies or compromises communications security, the manufacturer (and in some cases the importer) may be held directly liable.

[–] mr_satan@lemmy.zip 16 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Lately I'm more and more disappointed in EU legislations. Especially having to live with them…

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 22 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

EU went from frontrunner of internet privacy to asking for a gooner license.

[–] zqps@sh.itjust.works 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

There's so many lobby groups and national interests pulling in various directions that it's not really surprising to have both simultaneously.

TBH I'm still surprised GDPR ever made it through against the cries of every corporation on earth.

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 6 points 20 hours ago

It's up to us to keep it free. It is one of the last lights in this world, and it must NOT go out!

[–] ssfckdt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 20 hours ago

I mean, this is corporations using decent regulations as an excuse to do something they've probably already wanted to do.

[–] ssfckdt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 20 hours ago

I don't understand why the user doing what they want to their own possessions has any impact on the original manufacturer.

Samsung isn't selling flashed devices as far as I know...

[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 5 points 20 hours ago

Some of you need to become Politicians

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 15 points 1 day ago

This is really badly written, and that particularly annoys me because the subject matter is actually important.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 day ago

what an utter bullshit! will the manufacturer be also directly held liable if someone uses a phone of their brand to make a picture about me without authorization! of fucking course not!

fuck samsung, and all the manufacturers that follow suit, because this is just not needed.

but also fuck the red directive's decision makers for their unsatiable creep of wanting ever more power over our devices! this is exactly like saying, that there is this illegal thing, and if you are not doing it, but just have the slightest ability to do it, that is also illegal. what the actual fuck! get off my fucking phone you scumbags!!

[–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

and by extension possibly secure router firmware like OpenWRT too?

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

And meshnets that don't go through corporate infrastructure?

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 day ago (13 children)

PC Computers are next
This is why the big deal with TPM
Why TPM is never a removable security device
Why you can't save your old PC with a usb TPM device,
even though they are low power serial text devices

And TPM itself is just the thin side of the wedge.
It will grow more and more capable as an encrypted instructions processor
Eventually applications will run enough of their code
as encrypted instructions that they will become impossible to pirate.

This means application on your offline computer will be just as revocable as cloud application
and they will no longer be transferable, cryptographically tied to the processor core

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Here is a taste of the future

You CAN'T Jailbreak Your PC

The days of "it’s my hardware, I’ll run what I want" are over.
TPM 2.0, Secure Boot, and Microsoft Pluton are forming a closed execution environment.

You can’t replace the bootloader.  
You can’t flash unsigned firmware.  
You can’t disable the vendor-approved certificate store.

Try to run an unsigned OS, and it will simply refuse to boot.
Your motherboard no longer listens to you.
It listens to Microsoft and OEMs.


You Will Own Nothing, and Even That Nothing Is Tied to Your Old PC

TPM stores your encryption keys in a non-exportable way.
Your files, apps, and even your OS activation are now bound to your specific machine.

Want to move them to another system?
Too bad. The TPM won’t let you.
Even if you own both devices.

The machine is yours. The data, software, and identity within it are not.

Installing Linux Will Be Illegal (Functionally, If Not Yet Legally)

Secure Boot + Remote Attestation is the death knell for freedom-focused OSes.

Your distro doesn’t carry the "right" signature?
Blocked.

You modify the kernel for performance or privacy?
No longer attested.

You write your own OS?
You don’t get to boot.

It’s not banned in law.
It’s banned by cryptographic gatekeeping.

Digital preservation will be technically impossible.

Encrypted execution + hardware-tied software =
No way to archive.
No way to emulate.
No way to restore.

Games, apps, creative tools, all gone when the keys expire or the vendor shuts down.

We won’t just lose software.
We’ll lose entire cultural eras.

It's like that Apple ad crushing musical instruments but for your entire digital life

https://adage.com/video/crush-ipad-pro-apple/ (I couldn't find it unedited on youtube sorry)


You Have No Mouth and Can’t Say NO

Vendor lock-in is no longer a commercial strategy.
It’s cryptographic reality.

You can’t deny updates.
You can’t run unsigned code.
You can’t refuse attestation.

Because your software won’t run without it.

The PC has become a compliance terminal.
Saying "no" is no longer supported behavior.

A hardware-enforced, cryptographically sealed cage.

Your freedom to compute is being revoked—quietly, efficiently, irreversibly.
The illusion of ownership is maintained only until enforcement becomes total.
This isn’t theory. It’s shipping now.

If we don’t fight back, there will be no root access left to reclaim.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

What a fucking bleak run down. But it is the direction things are barreling towards.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 77 points 1 day ago (6 children)

WTF just happened in Europe in the last few months. We used to be some sort of (dimmly lit) beacon of user freedom and privacy considerations. Now, I know there's been a push for new legislations that basically fuck individual privacy over, but last I checked it was just a proposal. And now we're doing a fucking 1260° turn toward full stanglehold on everything.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 33 points 1 day ago (5 children)

There's also this article from yesterday: Austria legalises state spyware amidst strong opposition

i wonder what changed. these regulations are certainly a threat. they justified it with the "threat of (islamistic) terrorism", though i don't know what's really going on there.

[–] not_amm@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago

I mean, Mexico has never been a beacon of privacy or regulations (just for super specific technologies that were implemented first, mostly banking ones), but the government has also been pushing weird changes to how they handle surveillance and personal identifications, giving more power to the authorities while they're exempt for most of the transparency laws (everything they do, even public infrastructure is managed as some kind of 'state secret').

I am scared.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] CorruptCheesecake@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It seems like "democracies" worldwide are taking advantage of Trump's ascension and pushing these policies under the cover of night.

[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 day ago

this is more or less the impression I get. Like all the shitheads are seeing just how much disgusting illegal shit trump is getting away with and thinking "I could do that too!"

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 23 hours ago

Do these stupid legislators not understand when they are being played for fools? Who gets to such a position without knowing what protectionism is? Unless it’s simple corruption?

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 149 points 1 day ago (11 children)

The whole smart phone thing is such a lesson in letting go of the rope.

Once you let corporations get away with a little, they will eventually take everything.

Every time we lost a bit of control me and a few of enthusiasts were screaming, but the regular populace just shrugged...

Even on reddit you'd have to argue with idiots "oh just use Bluetooth headphones! Oh who needs sd cards, just use the cloud! Oh who needs rooting, it's not needed"

I swear to god if Windows / OS were invented today 80 of people would just shrug as all control of their PC was taken away.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 25 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Even on reddit you’d have to argue with idiots “oh just use Bluetooth headphones! Oh who needs sd cards, just use the cloud! Oh who needs rooting, it’s not needed”

Also, for any of said idiots who may be reading this. If you see someone removed about functionality being removed that you yourself don't need, the correct response is to just not respond. You don't have to gargle corporations balls. Removing things isn't making your phones cheaper/better. There's no reason to defend it.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If a user installs a ROM that interferes with radio frequencies

Do any "ROMs" or linuxes do this? Seems like you could get an "illegal USB bluetooth/wifi dongle" for shenanigans purposes instead. This all seems like such a pointless distraction that can only be to ensure that manufacturer backdoors are ensured as unescapable.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Chill_Dan@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The EU is pretty disappointing.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Chat message scanning can come in October, age verification is also introduced in various countries. Things are getting serious.

[–] CorruptCheesecake@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

The EU doesn't get to point at Trump's authoritarianism and feel all smug when they do this shit. Sorry.

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 194 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fuck smart phones and neo feudalism. This is theft of ownership with a criminal complicit government. I applaud all Luigi's these people deserve it. These are the killers of democracy. If your device only runs factory filtered stalkerware garbage, all democracy is dead. All information is easily filtered by this proprietary shit. Freedom of the press is a bullshit tiny niche of the broader requirement for a fully informed public. The fucking "press" is bullshit to highlight. You must have fully informed citizens and you may not choose how that information is shared or disseminated between citizens. This is not democracy. People are so fucking stupid.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 85 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Notice how the article implies Samsung and other corporations don't want to do this, even though it's something they've wanted to do for a long time? They almost certainly lobbied and ghost wrote most of this legislation to begin with; now they play the victim, even though they're a perpetrator.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cookie019@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 1 day ago (3 children)

As far as I know our contractual law prevent being liable for damage caused by users own usage of a hardware or software. This is why tor browser developers arent in trial as liable for some scams that some users do using their software - because of their contract policy. So this excuse is jot valid - they locked bootloader jot because they are obligated or fear trial just because they do not luke private os which prevent them from harvesesting users data

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

layman don't understand how much of a crime this is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 111 points 1 day ago

If you don't control the device, you don't own the device.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 60 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

So what? Linux computers are not compliant, can not use wifi, or what? I don't see how that prevents unlockable bootloaders, other than being used as an excuse by the manufacturers.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 20 points 1 day ago

It's a bullshit argument and this article is a classic example of a shitty journalist pretending that a new law overrules every other law in existence.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›