DISCLAIMER: This article is perphaps more opinionated and it may uses facts (relevant to the violation of consumers' right; however it affects, maybe, a certain community that isn't owned by me; neither is this issue relates to me; personally). And may contain grammatical errors.
It also treats the term "privacy" more generically than specific definition of "knowing who you are but not what you doing"
It also proposes a hypothetical (collection of) acts; the intention of the (collection of hypothetical) act is to help improve, who tinker on their BOUGHT devices (more information below). The proposed act also assumes these are unique acts and may conflict or being similar to existing acts
ADDENDUM: The introduction of this paragraph is a piece of my own perspective. However this may seems contradictory as I stated "neither is this issue relates to me; personally", however the explanation talks about the motive behind the proposal act.
The Motive
I switched from Apple to Android. One of its core value of android is rooting or so I thought. It was also influenced by the decision due to Apple's infame of banning the ability to root the bootloader (to only be jailbroken; even then; around Wednesday 25th February; around the time of writing this article, this have gotten harder or more restrictive). I have gotten a Samsung device, (since it was an android), however until a few days later, I have realised, they blocked the bootloader recently in OneUI 8. Nuked It (Note: it does reference other companies doing this dirty trick)
So what?
You may think this issue isn't major. This I disagree (to an extent; it's not important to a level such as the genocide in Gaza as an example, but I digress). In a common argument, this is YOUR device; YOU meant to own it. The "removal of unlocking the bootloader" trick will continue. I will predict the companies (behind this trick) will say "its for security reasons" but they and I know its there to just to control YOU. This is perphaps a weak argument as the argument is opinionated. However it can be expanded upon; such as the "loss" of control, to be reinforced.
Another argument is that; this is a PRIVACY CONCERN! For example, you're not allowed to switch OS, even if you wanted to. So this limits to the Stock OS, which is proprietary likely, as they pre-installed it. The companies can add malware or more specifically, a subset, which is spyware; such as they can serve ads (most likely). Short argument. I know this can be expanded, however this paragraph will be kept short.
Final argument (for this subsection) is that the issue may not be affecting YOU but it's indirectly doing so in the near future or now, whether you like it or not. The fact they blocked the bootloader can be suggesting; this could lead to further re-inforcement through of other privacy-invasive acts such as Age Verification. Since this benefits the company (liking data collection for M-O-NEY) and the (bad) politicians, this allows to sneakily add Age Verification onto the OS (perphaps in a "invisible" fashion such as data collection or Machine Learning to determine age) and takes advantage: by either having dark patterns in the privacy terms and services (such as purposely using weasel words), (most likely) people don't want to read the terms of services and rather use the device (now). Additionally, its proprietary software so this can go undetected for a while. Additionally, the Age Verification is worsen presented by this video (Note: it contains swear words).
So what do you propose?
Before I say "I propose ...", I am not a legal expert nor have the experience in law therefore if the act was applied, this could do more harm than good (despite my intention of this act is to help me and others; such in a privacy-focused way since too many acts are AGAINST privacy, what about acts that GIVES privacy).
Additionally, this proposed act is of course, just an idea, it can be debated to be in a better form, a fairer form or a form that goes against what it was originally meant, whatever it is, as long it forces manufacturers (making hardware and/or software) to allow FULLY-OFFLINE-BOOTLOADER-UNLOCKING option, with HARSH punishments (for example, punishing ONLY with fines is not a great punishment since they can pay the fines and further re-inforces the idea that the rich gets away. But the fines can be included with another punishments so long the punishment is treated as a disincentive rather than a gimmick to these multi-billionaire companies)
I propose the "Digital Ownership Superact"! A collection of (hypothetical) acts that have the intention of increasing ownership and thus privacy as well.
There are 2 main acts for this:
First step -> Android Laws --Generalised--> Product Mismanagement Act --then--> Open Source Infrastructure Contract
Android Laws
Description: Restricts the manufacturers' (software and/or hardware) restriction (such as BLOCKING THE BOOTLOADER) and design
Statement 1: They must be a system that must follows the requirement of:
being fair in the eyes of people (however this can be exploited in the following: environment of people is composed of majorly politicians and manufacturers' hooligans; it goals to become biased against the actual comsumers), however the definition of "people" must be fair even if to the minority of actual comsumers of manufacturers' product rather than the majority of the manufacturer's: the brided, hooligans, politicians, etc.
For example, electoral systems (with their types and subtypes) can differ in different areas such as [fictionally] in WeeWee land, they favour plurality voting over ranked voting system due to historical reasons whereas PooPoo land, they favour mixed sytems, since its a new country.
The punishments must be used correctly (finer details below)
The punishments enforced must not be "extreme". The definition of "extreme" is reliant on the intersubjectivity of the people (for example, highly likely; murder will be banned as a punishment when a/group of manufacturers' does not meet the criteria). However this can inferfere with the punishments that can highly work but seen as "extreme". Such as being in my following mind, restricting manufacturers' access to the pipeline. The pipeline is defined such as the stages and the processes within; such of the goal is to make the desired product (for example [fictionally], extracting coal from WeeWee land exporting to PooPoo land and refining as graphite, etc until exported to the main manufacturers of making rings). This can be fixed by, instead of applying near-"extreme"/"extreme" punishment when the manufacturers' doesn't meet the criteria (near-instant); there will be alot of restrictions on the punishments BUT it gets less restricted meaning more punishing the punishment overtime. Its depends on the people's frustrations and interacting with the system that the rate of punishment will apply but after a month, if manufacturers still haven't meet the criteria despite the punishments, the restrictions of the punishments will go away (to the minimum it can be) therefore it will become a harsh punishment.
The final requirement is that is should bare minimum of loopholes and circumventions; for example, the people can classify what manufacturers; belongs to the group (the group being is that to apply restrictions to the manufacturers; more detail mentioned above): (as if the manufacturer's had a choice to classify themselves; this will be bad; for example, they can say its an "Androidzzz, with a z, it's not Android D(-uh)") the classification, the choices of punishment, etc should be in hands more to the people than the manufacturers. This final requirement can be powerful; for example, people can change their mind and classify NinnyEndo (copyright shark!) as android and if system worked and applied, the NinnyEndo must comply to the criteria.
Statement 2: The main requirement for "classified-Android OS" is to allow FULLY-OFFLINE-BOOTLOADER-UNLOCKING option for everybody without any dark patterns (these dark patterns are classifed by the people, and this is a factor for not meeting the criteria). In a stricter sense, it must have the button of "Unlock bootloader" and (optionally, but a "must" in a security sense) a password to authenticate (it must be offline, such as not requiring to a online login account), and grants user privileges to control the FULL system (must be checked by the SPECIAL people like unix-savy people) even if its proprietary.
Statement 3: The OS must follow ALL or MOST (that can be argued of being the maximum of laws that doesn't contract each other) privacy laws enforced by every registered country (for example, [fictionally] WeeWee land have a privacy law of having a moustache being displayed in the login screen whereas PooPoo land have same law like WeeWee land except with the addition of having a tree being displayed in the UEFI screen, the OS must follow PooPoo laws (unless some laws contracts each other)). (Not just 1 within the jurisdiction).
Statement ...: There could be more statements but this is for now; the first step.
This is then be (maybe) generalised into the Product Mismanagement Act, this I have little information but in a general requirement; this is there to stop scammy, dark patterns and tricking to buy more of their products. This video will (may) help as a few examples shown (In my opinion, he explains in perphaps lay-man terms but it is "clickbaity"). An example is the Printer Scam (referenced from the video in the description during the current time, I was writing). This may be seperate act to this or somehow generalised into this act. (I prefer if the act is seperate rather generalised into this act however I don't mind how its changes as long it still has original identity)
Open Source Infrastructure Contract
Proprietary software will be around as long as >[INSERT STATEMENT SOUNDING LIKE OLD FOLK TALE]< however there are concerns such as when placed in a critical environment. Such as machines operating to deliver radiotherapy; software that is proprietary is HIGHLY concerning; even if the software (and the specialised machine) went to all rigorous testing; there could be a mistake that went undetected for all of rigorous testing; would it cost a human life?
For example, this video (albeit he is biases towards Rust (assuming that his persona) however I would argue that tools like Frama-C should detect these issues in C codebase, but I digress once more; credits to the commentors of that video).
The evidence is short as it cover 1 case however we should still consider the possibility in a hypothetical or real-life situation.
The point of this act is to force (legally) to open source critical software that applies to environment that cost a human life. This is because this allows people to correct mistakes after the rigorous testing and of course it allows the people in these critical environment to test themself (if there are able to) and as well as people, who wants to develop in critical environment to learn what it looks like, rather than be a black box you trust upon (if human(s) is in these critical environment)
However if we want to, we can expand upon "common" proprietary software; but this might be controversial as people might want Free Open Source Software but not (legally) force the developer to open source their/company's proprietary software. However we can force (legally) to open source parts of the code rather than all of the code. The code that must be open source is: code that relys on network and goes to a party than intended (for example web browser can be proprietary however; if the browser sends personalised data to the receipt; he must open source that part of code but if the web browser instead does it normally and sends packets to the users' destination (website); then it's fine), code that operates on the Kernel rather than Userspace (for example, anticheat kernel-level software) and etc.
Copyright Demote
I have no expertise on this topic and may not be linked to it however; the idea is that for example, a physical product is no longer selling; this act allows after 6 (or generously 12) weeks of inactivity; to either force open source the hardware and (very least) software pre-installed, if the company went bankrupt; instead it not a punishable offence to reverse-engineer and release the plans to making them. A company cannot call copyright strike onto a reverse-engineered discontinued product; it becomes public domain.
Conclusion
We had went to great detail about the "Android Laws" however there were less details for the last 2 hypothetical acts as the reason this there were not "the first step".
There are also flaws such as asking questions about this. An example is "what do you mean 'open source?'"; it may seen stupid until you get the point. Like in a strict sense; what counts as "open source"; binary code released to the public; source code released to some people? And with the minimum license; should it be MIT; GPL v?; etc. There are also controversy to this proposed act such as "Open Source Infrastructure Contract"; people may not be comfortable to force foss onto proprietary software (mentioned that point above). And what about if let say there was a world wide crisis of lack of resources (such as a nuclear winter), would all products still be subjected to that law (if the manufacturer is still working, like underground bunker or somewhat)?
In the end, this article is like guidelines; if your a (good) politician and want to apply this act or similar; let this article be of help (if you want) and sorry to be selfish but share this article to your friends and family or to a wide audiences or YouTubrs with big audiences and small audiences if you can or share in any shape or form as long it meets to the license of this article (even if you stumble by accident).
And I almost forgot, please archive my article please (whoever you are); thank you!