6 ms·

Devil's advocate: It makes the law is trying to avoid their being a distinction between code that lives on hardware you have in your possession and code that l

Devil's advocate: It makes the law is trying to avoid their being a distinction between code that lives on hardware you have in your possession and code that lives on a company server. For instance you might be indignant that you can't look at the code on your proprietary device, but you aren't indignant that you can't look at the code that runs Google's search engine. So without laws to "equal the playing field" in a sense - server side service companies get a distinct advantage as they're able to have trade secrets - while companies that distribute code are kinda screwed. Even with the current legal environment companies STILL try to push processing into their own server controlled space (see Siri, Cortana, most cloud services)

darkmighty 11y ago
Honestly, I believe if you're given a physical device in your hands and pay for it, you should have the right to figure out how it works. The problem of everyone uploading code to the cloud to prevent this (which is not applicable to cars firmware anyway) is different, and a valid way to protect your IP. I don't particularly care this makes code move into the cloud. But the packets sent to your device, which may affect your device, your health, well-being directly, you should be able to read and modify -- same as the local code. By forcing black boxes upon us we don't have a minimal control, understanding, or prediction of what our own devices can do to ourselves. It's insane.
- something123 11y ago
  So you have zero sympathy for the fact that this creates an unequal playing field? That Google gets too keep all their code private but a car company can't (due to the rather arbitrary fact that it's impractical for the car to ask a server how to change the engine parameters) How about if I want to buy a device and agree to not see the code? (b/c for instance - I personally - have no interest in it) Should I not be allowed to enter such a contract with a company? If yes, why is a company not allowed to sell devices exclusively with such licenses? If not, why are you limiting the consumer's rights? (this rabbit hole simply leads to companies only leasing consumer's devices, b/c selling them suddenly involves giving away all your trade secrets)
  - lultimouomo 11y ago
    Well, the company could rent a device instead of selling it. Just like google provides services, instead of selling its code.
  - HelloNurse 11y ago
    Dear shill, if you don't want to see the code for your device, don't look at it. The right of other less optimistic consumers and government agencies are more important than the desires of your device maker. Additionally, if companies lease devices they are no less accountable for the code on them.
  - seren 11y ago
    Regarding an equal playing field, if all actors in the same space have the same constraints, I don't see how it distorts anything. There are already plenty of standards for aeronautics, healthcare, automotive, (MISRA, DO178,...) that don't apply to other fields. Does it creates an unequal playing field ?
    - xchaotic 11y ago
      For small businesses it does. There's a huge cost to be compliant with the regulations in medical and aviation space, so you don't see many successful startups and not much progress as a result. We are still flying WWII rockets and use crude antibiotics.
      - seren 11y ago
        Some fields are more capital intensive than other. It is much easier to launch a mobile app than an oil refinery. It does not distort the competition between companies who have to follow the same rule book. I understand where you are coming from but you need to have a minimum threshold for software that is going to be a matter of life and death.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Regulations are not what is responsible for us flying WWII rockets and using crude antibiotics; they're responsible for those rockets not exploding too often or those antibiotics not killing us in most painful ways imaginable. Rocketry and medicine are hard.

darkmighty 11y ago

Honestly, I believe if you're given a physical device in your hands and pay for it, you should have the right to figure out how it works. The problem of everyone uploading code to the cloud to prevent this (which is not applicable to cars firmware anyway) is different, and a valid way to protect your IP. I don't particularly care this makes code move into the cloud. But the packets sent to your device, which may affect your device, your health, well-being directly, you should be able to read and modify -- same as the local code. By forcing black boxes upon us we don't have a minimal control, understanding, or prediction of what our own devices can do to ourselves. It's insane.

something123 11y ago
So you have zero sympathy for the fact that this creates an unequal playing field? That Google gets too keep all their code private but a car company can't (due to the rather arbitrary fact that it's impractical for the car to ask a server how to change the engine parameters) How about if I want to buy a device and agree to not see the code? (b/c for instance - I personally - have no interest in it) Should I not be allowed to enter such a contract with a company? If yes, why is a company not allowed to sell devices exclusively with such licenses? If not, why are you limiting the consumer's rights? (this rabbit hole simply leads to companies only leasing consumer's devices, b/c selling them suddenly involves giving away all your trade secrets)
- lultimouomo 11y ago
  Well, the company could rent a device instead of selling it. Just like google provides services, instead of selling its code.
- HelloNurse 11y ago
  Dear shill, if you don't want to see the code for your device, don't look at it. The right of other less optimistic consumers and government agencies are more important than the desires of your device maker. Additionally, if companies lease devices they are no less accountable for the code on them.
- seren 11y ago
  Regarding an equal playing field, if all actors in the same space have the same constraints, I don't see how it distorts anything. There are already plenty of standards for aeronautics, healthcare, automotive, (MISRA, DO178,...) that don't apply to other fields. Does it creates an unequal playing field ?
  - xchaotic 11y ago
    For small businesses it does. There's a huge cost to be compliant with the regulations in medical and aviation space, so you don't see many successful startups and not much progress as a result. We are still flying WWII rockets and use crude antibiotics.
    - seren 11y ago
      Some fields are more capital intensive than other. It is much easier to launch a mobile app than an oil refinery. It does not distort the competition between companies who have to follow the same rule book. I understand where you are coming from but you need to have a minimum threshold for software that is going to be a matter of life and death.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Regulations are not what is responsible for us flying WWII rockets and using crude antibiotics; they're responsible for those rockets not exploding too often or those antibiotics not killing us in most painful ways imaginable. Rocketry and medicine are hard.