4 ms·

>Say, I have a Samsung tv with internet. I hook it up to the 'net. I use the built in features intended. It updates when it needs to. In your proposed universe

by _red 8y ago

>Say, I have a Samsung tv with internet. I hook it up to the 'net. I use the built in features intended. It updates when it needs to. In your proposed universe, you won't have a "smart tv" because you will choose not to pay the $3500 price tag to cover the security audits and increased litigation insurance that will accompany the manufacture of such devices. Most linux distros will also be sued out of existence. Such laws are a dream for authoritarian regimes. Ultimately there will be a only a small handful of monopoly powers who have enough resources to navigate the regulatory landscape.

MisterTea 8y ago
Did you accurately calculate the extra expenses needed to create a secure TV? Or did you pull $3500 out of your ass to bolster your argument?
crankylinuxuser 8y ago
And you're going to the "OMG regulatory hell" argument. Its only been the last 10 years since we've had idiotic "smart features". I'm proposing excising these "smart" features out of devices that don't need it. A TV/Monitor is and will be useful for the foreseeable future. A TV/MOnitor with bit-rotted 'smart features' will turn the device into a disposable device when the maintainer/owner finally wants to get rid of it.
- _red 8y ago
  >A TV/Monitor is and will be useful for the foreseeable future. Then just buy a TV / Monitor?
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Have you tried this recently, for a high-end device in a category for which a smart alternative exists? E.g. TVs Without liability, there is no disincentivizing including smart features for manufacturers. I agree that "Use a user-patchable / open source / replaceable stack -> shielded from some liability" or "Lock everything down -> take on legal liability for your own security" is a sane system to put in place. There's no reason 50%+ of IoT devices (especially Chinese clones) aren't built top-to-bottom open source, aside from manufacturer ignorance / laziness.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
And I'm also rejecting this argument that if we don't let software companies shovel whatever shit they want out the door without consequence, then nothing will happen. There is no basis for that whatsoever.

by _red 8y ago

MisterTea 8y ago

Did you accurately calculate the extra expenses needed to create a secure TV? Or did you pull $3500 out of your ass to bolster your argument?

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

And you're going to the "OMG regulatory hell" argument. Its only been the last 10 years since we've had idiotic "smart features". I'm proposing excising these "smart" features out of devices that don't need it. A TV/Monitor is and will be useful for the foreseeable future. A TV/MOnitor with bit-rotted 'smart features' will turn the device into a disposable device when the maintainer/owner finally wants to get rid of it.

_red 8y ago
>A TV/Monitor is and will be useful for the foreseeable future. Then just buy a TV / Monitor?
- ethbro 8y ago
  Have you tried this recently, for a high-end device in a category for which a smart alternative exists? E.g. TVs Without liability, there is no disincentivizing including smart features for manufacturers. I agree that "Use a user-patchable / open source / replaceable stack -> shielded from some liability" or "Lock everything down -> take on legal liability for your own security" is a sane system to put in place. There's no reason 50%+ of IoT devices (especially Chinese clones) aren't built top-to-bottom open source, aside from manufacturer ignorance / laziness.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

And I'm also rejecting this argument that if we don't let software companies shovel whatever shit they want out the door without consequence, then nothing will happen. There is no basis for that whatsoever.