4 ms·

I don't know why many comments about "the customer is clearly an asshole, therefore he deserves the lock not working/the company has the legal rights to do so b

by jimmies 10y ago

I don't know why many comments about "the customer is clearly an asshole, therefore he deserves the lock not working/the company has the legal rights to do so blah blah" are modded so high right now. Even when the customer is an asshole, that has absolutely nothing to do with a security device betraying him or not. I'm very glad that the customer is now only denied access to the app. I can see one day a company that sells the "cloud-lock" will allow any thief to get in the customer's door because they left a negative review for the product (and not bragging about their vengeance in a public forum like this Garaget company did). The fact that your lock one day will betray you, or your smoke detector won't sound, your pacemaker will pump differently or your car will make a different ethical decision because the company that sells it thinks that you're an asshole is beyond crazy. If this isn't a wake-up call to anyone who doesn't realize how dangerous this DRM (Digital Rights Myass) thing is becoming, I don't know what is. This is the can of shit that's just can't wait to hit the fan for those who trust in those cloud-based proprietary "solutions." This is exactly the kind of behavior that Stallman and the EFF warned us against and guess what, they're right again.

rapht 10y ago
I absolutely second that. And the problem is: the industry's interest is to lock you in on their cloud so that you end up paying a recurring fee of some sort, while the public's interest is clearly to be as free as possible from the manufacturer once you have purchased from them... So until there is clear regulation about what you own, what you don't, and what your (preferably protective) rights really are when you purchase a device that relies on the manufacturer's cloud for operation, and even more generally, when you seem to own some thing but the manufacturer explains in the fine print that you only have a "license to use" that thing that limits what you can do with it ; until that, my friends, we're going to be at the mercy of manufacturers acting in their own interest, punto.
usrusr 10y ago
I don't really see that future where honest lockmakers would routinely pivot to selling access to the highest bidder, but I do see one where potential buyers would be even more likely than today to choose the devil they know (an overpriced incumbent with less innovative products, but who can be absolutely trusted to not trip into suicidal anti-customer vendettas) over the devil they don't (the charming startup that might hide a source of infinite childishness)
wapz 10y ago
I agree with you completely. In addition, imagine if this was your home door lock. Let's say it has bluetooth connectivity and it didn't work from 8 feet away (with a 10 foot range advertised), you get pissed, give it a wordy 1 star review, and the next thing you know you are locked out of your house. This is all at whim of someone behind a computer potentially halfway around the globe.
- ant6n 10y ago
  The Garage door often _is_ a home door.
goldenkey 10y ago
I highly recommend the movie Repo Men (2010) to those who want to viscerally feel the implications of this kind of DRM. http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1053424/ http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1053424/
throwanem 10y ago
Tactical note: Drop the last paragraph. It adds nothing, and takes away from the point you very effectively made prior. People will most strongly remember the first and especially the last words you say to them. Make sure those words are the ones you want remembered.
- jimmies 10y ago
  The last one is a very important paragraph to see the big picture. Without that, my comment might just be an isolated case and fear mongering. It is important to see although this door lock/car control/whatever problem is new, the underlying thought process is not new. Not having the rights to understand and modify, leading to having to trust what "the cloud" or proprietary software does (especially those that determine your personal security) is a topic that was brought up again and again by the people I mentioned. We will be lost in the details of this particular case of this door lock/crazy customer/picky company otherwise, so I think it is worthy to relay the principles.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    That can be effectively done without the explicit tie to Stallman and FSF, whose absolutism many find offputting.
sebastianconcpt 10y ago
OMG I can't beleive anyone cares about the app's hurt feelings! Now seriously, this is amazing, so unprofessional. The company really mixed up things based on how someone felt at the moment of dealing with support? Now the question on the table is if that breaks contract or not. Both cases are terrible. If you say yes the company opens a juridical risk and if you say no it means its Terms of Service have something like "...and we may deny the service if you leave a negative app review or ask for our support in a way that we don't feel belonging to a 'safe space', specially if the user don't trigger warns us..."
Arizhel 10y ago
I agree mostly, except the last part about DRM. I don't like DRM either, but this isn't DRM, this is a case where a physical device is dependent upon a cloud/internet service to actually function. So if the company either goes belly-up, or (as in this case) decides to capriciously revoke your device's access, you're left with a device that simply does not function. Personally, I think this is terrible, but I think this incident is a good wake-up call to how ridiculous this kind of thing is, and why consumers should stay far, far away from such devices. I hope this gets a lot of mainstream media attention. But it's not DRM; that's an entirely different animal. That's where your own device (usually a computer or mobile computing device like a phone) is sent some encrypted media content, along with keys to decrypt it, so that it can only be viewed on your device (and according to certain stipulations), and this is enforced by your own device against you, the device's owner.
- skocznymroczny 10y ago
  you mean the device licensor, read your EULAs next time :)
yunolisten 10y ago
> I don't know why many comments about "the customer is clearly an asshole, therefore he deserves the lock not working/the company has the legal rights to do so blah blah" This attitude is rife in the tech industry, sadly, people somehow thing one of their own is being abused by others having an opinion or reporting an experience. Safe spaces, trigger warnings....

by jimmies 10y ago

rapht 10y ago

I absolutely second that. And the problem is: the industry's interest is to lock you in on their cloud so that you end up paying a recurring fee of some sort, while the public's interest is clearly to be as free as possible from the manufacturer once you have purchased from them... So until there is clear regulation about what you own, what you don't, and what your (preferably protective) rights really are when you purchase a device that relies on the manufacturer's cloud for operation, and even more generally, when you seem to own some thing but the manufacturer explains in the fine print that you only have a "license to use" that thing that limits what you can do with it ; until that, my friends, we're going to be at the mercy of manufacturers acting in their own interest, punto.

usrusr 10y ago

I don't really see that future where honest lockmakers would routinely pivot to selling access to the highest bidder, but I do see one where potential buyers would be even more likely than today to choose the devil they know (an overpriced incumbent with less innovative products, but who can be absolutely trusted to not trip into suicidal anti-customer vendettas) over the devil they don't (the charming startup that might hide a source of infinite childishness)

wapz 10y ago

I agree with you completely. In addition, imagine if this was your home door lock. Let's say it has bluetooth connectivity and it didn't work from 8 feet away (with a 10 foot range advertised), you get pissed, give it a wordy 1 star review, and the next thing you know you are locked out of your house. This is all at whim of someone behind a computer potentially halfway around the globe.

ant6n 10y ago
The Garage door often _is_ a home door.

goldenkey 10y ago

I highly recommend the movie Repo Men (2010) to those who want to viscerally feel the implications of this kind of DRM. http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1053424/ http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1053424/

throwanem 10y ago

Tactical note: Drop the last paragraph. It adds nothing, and takes away from the point you very effectively made prior. People will most strongly remember the first and especially the last words you say to them. Make sure those words are the ones you want remembered.

jimmies 10y ago
The last one is a very important paragraph to see the big picture. Without that, my comment might just be an isolated case and fear mongering. It is important to see although this door lock/car control/whatever problem is new, the underlying thought process is not new. Not having the rights to understand and modify, leading to having to trust what "the cloud" or proprietary software does (especially those that determine your personal security) is a topic that was brought up again and again by the people I mentioned. We will be lost in the details of this particular case of this door lock/crazy customer/picky company otherwise, so I think it is worthy to relay the principles.
- throwanem 10y ago
  That can be effectively done without the explicit tie to Stallman and FSF, whose absolutism many find offputting.

sebastianconcpt 10y ago

OMG I can't beleive anyone cares about the app's hurt feelings! Now seriously, this is amazing, so unprofessional. The company really mixed up things based on how someone felt at the moment of dealing with support? Now the question on the table is if that breaks contract or not. Both cases are terrible. If you say yes the company opens a juridical risk and if you say no it means its Terms of Service have something like "...and we may deny the service if you leave a negative app review or ask for our support in a way that we don't feel belonging to a 'safe space', specially if the user don't trigger warns us..."

Arizhel 10y ago

I agree mostly, except the last part about DRM. I don't like DRM either, but this isn't DRM, this is a case where a physical device is dependent upon a cloud/internet service to actually function. So if the company either goes belly-up, or (as in this case) decides to capriciously revoke your device's access, you're left with a device that simply does not function. Personally, I think this is terrible, but I think this incident is a good wake-up call to how ridiculous this kind of thing is, and why consumers should stay far, far away from such devices. I hope this gets a lot of mainstream media attention. But it's not DRM; that's an entirely different animal. That's where your own device (usually a computer or mobile computing device like a phone) is sent some encrypted media content, along with keys to decrypt it, so that it can only be viewed on your device (and according to certain stipulations), and this is enforced by your own device against you, the device's owner.

skocznymroczny 10y ago
you mean the device licensor, read your EULAs next time :)

yunolisten 10y ago

> I don't know why many comments about "the customer is clearly an asshole, therefore he deserves the lock not working/the company has the legal rights to do so blah blah" This attitude is rife in the tech industry, sadly, people somehow thing one of their own is being abused by others having an opinion or reporting an experience. Safe spaces, trigger warnings....