Azzu

Theme song for this post: https://youtu.be/M0tBgQxur3g

I know it's hard or impossible over text to identify, but I was being sarcastic :)

I share your sentiment.

Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.

Obviously a much more engaging and mentally challenging job than police officer. I'm sure he'll stay in that job forever because of this.

But granting root is not done by "the UI layer", "the UI layer" is not running with root. There is no such thing as "the UI layer" as a separate entity, an app can have a UI layer as part of its architecture, but the UI is not running on its own. Just because Magisk shows you a UI for you to grant/deny a root request, that doesn't make it insecure. Nothing is able to interact with this prompt except the Android kernel/libraries itself and Magisk.

Only if you added an application as accessibility tool (or give it root) can it interact with anything within the UI. An app with a UI is generally not much different than an app on the command line.

I'm pretty sure whoever wrote that was talking out their ass. The fuck is "UI layer" on Android, or rather, what does it have to do with it xD

But the previous commenter talked about security issues, you're only talking about usability issues.

What are the security issues? Rooted just means the potential to give trusted apps root access. Of course, if you give an app root access that you trust but is then abusing that trust and being malicious, yes it's a security issue. But if you don't do that, the simple fact of having a rooted phone should have no security change in any way. (Ok, except for potential bugs in Magisk/su or whatever)

This is misinformation in the sense that with Magisk, Magiskhide and its denylist, I haven't seen an app that detects root. Everything works for me even though I'm rooted.

Not saying there aren't cases depending on phone and apps where it couldn't happen, but usually rooting is not a problem.

Society in general has not granted this, it was corrupt lawmakers. Notice the distinction of maximizing profits, no one says no profits should be had at all. But I'm pretty sure most of the people don't want companies to literally hold back progress of a whole field, of humanity in general just so their profits can be maximized. It's only the ones directly benefitting from this that would want this, or if you're brainwashed by those parties, otherwise you're just against your own best interests (and of the rest of humanity) which is irrational.

The "response" is that they got a lawyer, that's literally it. Misleading title imo.

It's almost certain they can't. Motives are notoriously hard to prove, and they can just invent a plausible, legal, lie.

Missing knowledge is probably the problem. Either from small sellers that don't know that they'll win, or from lawyers that don't offer to work pro bono for the same reason.