4 ms·
Oftentimes the dumb, preventable way has repercussions on others. In the case of not updating these IoT devices, it could be a botnet, that really doesn’t even
by schrodinger 9y ago
Oftentimes the dumb, preventable way has repercussions on others. In the case of not updating these IoT devices, it could be a botnet, that really doesn’t even impact the dumb person who failed to take preventive steps. In the case of the lawnmower, expense to the healthcare system.
- AnthonyMouse 9y agoThat's the point. You have a manufacturer that sells a product with N years of support and a customer who buys it and keeps operating it out of support for N+5 years, what is the manufacturer supposed to do about that? Support the product until the end of time? Remote brick the customer's property?
- cmurf 9y agoApple (at least) has shown us for some time that the device you buy is not really 100% your property. All kinds of proscriptions are in the EULA that prevent you from doing whatever you want with a Mac, and it's far more extensive with iOS devices. So yes, the company is remote bricking their property. What the consumer paid was a one time rental payment, not a purchase.
- AnthonyMouse 9y agoIt sounds a lot like you're proposing enshrining that sort of corporate serfdom in the law and prohibiting the situation where the customer actually owns their own property.
- cmurf 9y agoNope. It was just an observation that I think most people are completely unaware of; or they accept it because the alternative of crappy phones from companies that do not care to keep them updated, or drop all kinds of trash all over them that cannot be removed, sucks so badly that a company can get away with what Apple does. You are voluntarily agreeing to that EULA. You don't in fact have to agree.