Yikes. Nevermind. The whole phone security model is one of the worst things to happen to computing, the concept that you shouldn't own your device for safety is so fucked.

> the concept that you shouldn't own your device for safety is so fucked.

That's not it. The concept is "if you choose to install this particular OS on the device you own, then it comes with this particular security model". That's totally fine. If you own your device, you can run Linux on it and you'll have root access.

"Not owning your device" means "not being able to install the OS you want on it". I want to own my device, obviously. But it does not mean that I own the developers of every OS in the world and that they should do whatever I tell them to do, for free.

A non rooted device is NOT really my device, just seems like a leased device.

If we want to use banking app we have to use a non-rooted/leased device. That is what is really messed up. Personally I only use bank now that has website for banking. If they don't have a web site only app, then it is a red alert for the company.

I think is great, if there are no ramifications when skilled people unlock it.

There's just too much hacking going on, malicious behaviour, to allow uneducated masses to have root on a phone. I've seen so many people just not understanding the outcome of their actions. You'd get people rooting because some shady app lied about why, and just wanted control.

And we don't need more botnets. And it's why banks sometimes throw a fit.

So if a recompile does the trick, and no downside, then it'd be fine.

Android is not UNIX, and that's a good thing. The root account was a historical mistake and not having access to it doesn't mean you don't own your device. That mindset is just trying to project how things worked with a half century old operating system with how modern operating systems work.