By purchasing a device, you become a 100% owner?
Users often wonder if, when they purchase a device or even a common appliance, they are truly the owners of it or if the law or companies decide how much they can do and how limited they are.
The answer is complex and depends on the type of device and the current laws. Although the user may physically possess it, laws on intellectual property can significantly limit what the user can do with it. Additionally, companies that develop the software and hardware of the device may limit user access for reasons of security, privacy, and technical support.
At the dawn of computing, access to computers and electronics in general was extremely free and open, a planet without rules or laws. Users could do whatever they wanted with their devices, install software, modify the operating system, and even access parts of the system that were normally protected. This applies to any new technology in the early stages of its existence, including cars, radio and television stations in the past decades, as drones and scooters do today; regulation always comes later. In this context, the world of computing has evolved, and user access has become increasingly limited and "regulated".
There are many reasons why users have been limited in their access to devices. One of the main reasons is privacy and security. With the proliferation of viruses, malware, and other digital threats, companies and users themselves have had to protect their devices from intrusions and damage. Privacy laws require companies to protect their users' data and ensure that users' personal information is not compromised. This has led to an increase in restrictions and protections at the operating system and hardware levels to limit access and modifications. Additionally, companies also have a responsibility to protect their intellectual property. Companies invest time and money to develop unique software and applications and want to protect this investment by reducing user access. Copyright protects a company's intellectual property, and limiting access reduces the possibility that users will make accidental modifications or install harmful applications that could damage the system.
In this context, users can feel frustrated when they cannot perform certain operations or install specific applications due to system restrictions. There are also people who believe that access limitations can limit innovation, limiting developers' ability to create new applications or develop creative solutions to problems. This can also lead users to use unofficial or unsafe software to perform desired operations.
However, companies are often not "forced" by law to limit access privileges. The limitation of access, interpreted as part of the manufacturer's responsibility to protect the privacy and data of its users, as well as the security of commercial information, is not always interpreted as a necessary "de facto". In fact, it is not only security and the protection of intellectual property that leads to the limitation of user access to devices. Sometimes, companies themselves avoid full access to the devices they sell to create a "dependency" on technical support between producer and consumer. Operations such as backup and restore, as well as cloud management, are often a source of profit for both hardware manufacturers and software developers.
A solution could be to accept the use of all features as a disclaimer to release the manufacturer from its responsibilities, effectively transferring them to the user. Of course, this requires adequate engineering and computer knowledge to exclude limiting access, but isn't this already the case when driving a means of transport or handling everyday tools that can be dangerous if used improperly?
Perhaps in the future, there will be psychological and suitability tests to own a mobile phone, and at this point, the legitimate question arises: will such tests be proportional to the potential dangers or to the income of the economy in the purchase of such products? To Science the answer...