4 ms·

The manufacturer should never be able to either deactivate or otherwise disable the functionality of a device they sold in a form that requires a service to fun

The manufacturer should never be able to either deactivate or otherwise disable the functionality of a device they sold in a form that requires a service to function. If the customer is paying a subscription fee and no longer has to pay the fee when the service goes away, that is maaaybe fine (albeit opening a loophole that would most likely be abused (from a customer's perspective). If the service was priced into the selling price of the device, game or other software though: nope, never. You did the math, you sold the device for that price, now keep on delivering. That would not necessarily mean that they would have to run servers indefinitely, it could as well be in the form of releasing or open sourcing the related server software or the specifications (and required certificates for signing updates if applicable? That might be thorny though.) in a form that someone else could successfully take their place when they end-of-life a device. Ideally in a form that would also work when the company closes shop, that is when no longer any form of workforce or capital for anything might be available. It might be time to actually require that from (also software) manufacturers since there seems almost no change in that regard.

tcd 7y ago
That's a very idealistic but unrealistic perspective. Often times the source code can't or won't be released - it could put further customers at risk if a vulnerability is found and the update servers have gone away. Some devices might not be possible to update due to hardware/software configuration (perhaps certain variables are hard coded?). Whilst what you're saying is right it just doesn't work that way. I'd love for all the Android devices to get years of OS and security patches, but it simply doesn't happen. Any IoT device is pretty much the same. It's not going to change any time soon. Only invest in products you can be sure of (which is hard these days). Expect them to break, expect nobody to care, and be prepared to lose money or get a terrible ROI - it's why phones don't get updates, the OEM doesn't make money from providing updates which are a direct cost VS selling a new phone. This is capitalism, produce crap, sell many units, offer no support, rinse and repeat.
- Silhouette 7y ago
  Market forces have clearly failed to address this issue for an extended period, so this seems to be a situation where statutory regulation is indicated.
- vbezhenar 7y ago
  Security by obscurity does not work. For experienced reverse engineers reading assembly code is as easy as reading C code for someone else.
avian 7y ago
> Ideally in a form that would also work when the company closes shop You typically already have to provide full hardware schematic when submitting an electronic product to test labs to get various certifications. It doesn't seem that far fetched that you would also have to submit server software and the certification house would keep it in escrow in case you go bankrupt. I don't think it's realistic to expect that will happen though.
- paulgb 7y ago
  Code escrow isn't unheard of in B2B software. Maybe enough people will be burned by companies bricking their hardware that it will happen with B2C, too?
- tcd 7y ago
  Let's assume product uses domain.com to get updates. domain.com one day might be owned by $badDude - that's a huge risk domain.com might return 404's - that's pretty terrible. What happens to domain.com once $business is now $noLongerBusiness? You can provide a method of flashing firmware onto the device itself (possible security risk?), but where do you get the files from? How do you verify they're safe? Then, you need to host the server software itself (depending on how it's coded, that ranges from quite simple to your worst nightmare), and you expect someone to keep that secure? The EU dictates GDPR compliance, which adds additional cost to maintenance. It's just easier and cheaper to just not bother with servers if the company can't keep them online.
  - vbezhenar 7y ago
    Let user change server domain. Firmware must be signed by certificate with that domain. So now user can change server domain to his own server (or someone he trusts) and sign firmware with that key. It poses no security risk.
scarface74 7y ago
The manufacturer should never be able to either deactivate or otherwise disable the functionality of a device they sold in a form that requires a service to function. Exactly, why can’t I still dial in with my 2400 baud modem to get virus definitions for Norton Antivirus for my 386 that I bought in the 80s?
- the8472 7y ago
  You can dial your 2400 baud modem if you find another endpoint or operate one yourself, you're not bound to a specific provider. Fax machines still work after all. You can run norton antivirus for DOS in whatever state it was when it was last sold.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So now all I have to do is find someone who keeps a bank of 2400 baud modems and an updated list of virus definition files. As far as using as it was, what good is virus protection software that only works for viruses created in the 80s? Sure I can use a standalone gps device that I bought 10 years ago that doesn’t get updated but that doesn’t do me too much good navigating in a suburban area where most of the roads, houses and businesses didn’t even exist then.
    - afiori 7y ago
      But this is the point, manufacturers should offer improved features as incentives not intentionally and gratuitously deprecating older products.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        It is an optional feature in this case. He could go out and buy a regular cartridge and print from his same printer. I looked at the pricing. I would go for the free tier in a heartbeat- 15 pages a month and $1 for 10 (?) pages over that. I don’t print that often.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
GuB-42 7y ago
Isn't that tying? The manufacturer sells both the product and the service, and they can't be separated. Many countries have laws against it, or at least some forms of it. Furthermore, many countries now have some regulations regarding e-waste. Either now or in the making. And I expect "bricking" to be punished in some way. Right to repair comes to mind.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> The manufacturer should never be able to either deactivate or otherwise disable the functionality of a device they sold in a form that requires a service to function. I would go further: IMO, the manufacturer should never be able to sell the device that requires a service to function, period. They should only be able to either a) sell the device that can be optionally tied to a service - not necessarily manufacturer's - but otherwise works fine without it, or b) rent a device as a part of a service, remaining responsible for its maintenance. Model a) is how cell phones work - you buy a cell phone, a cellular connection is a separate service provided by multiple competing parties that are not the manufacturer. Model b) is how ISPs tend to work - they lend you hardware to connect to their network infrastructure, they replace it if it breaks, they take it away at the end of the contract, and they absolutely refuse to let you use their hardware with a different ISP.
kenjackson 7y ago
Why do you specify “device”. Shouldn’t the same be said for an app or service that is sold?

tcd 7y ago

That's a very idealistic but unrealistic perspective. Often times the source code can't or won't be released - it could put further customers at risk if a vulnerability is found and the update servers have gone away. Some devices might not be possible to update due to hardware/software configuration (perhaps certain variables are hard coded?). Whilst what you're saying is right it just doesn't work that way. I'd love for all the Android devices to get years of OS and security patches, but it simply doesn't happen. Any IoT device is pretty much the same. It's not going to change any time soon. Only invest in products you can be sure of (which is hard these days). Expect them to break, expect nobody to care, and be prepared to lose money or get a terrible ROI - it's why phones don't get updates, the OEM doesn't make money from providing updates which are a direct cost VS selling a new phone. This is capitalism, produce crap, sell many units, offer no support, rinse and repeat.

Silhouette 7y ago
Market forces have clearly failed to address this issue for an extended period, so this seems to be a situation where statutory regulation is indicated.
vbezhenar 7y ago
Security by obscurity does not work. For experienced reverse engineers reading assembly code is as easy as reading C code for someone else.

avian 7y ago

> Ideally in a form that would also work when the company closes shop You typically already have to provide full hardware schematic when submitting an electronic product to test labs to get various certifications. It doesn't seem that far fetched that you would also have to submit server software and the certification house would keep it in escrow in case you go bankrupt. I don't think it's realistic to expect that will happen though.

paulgb 7y ago
Code escrow isn't unheard of in B2B software. Maybe enough people will be burned by companies bricking their hardware that it will happen with B2C, too?
tcd 7y ago
Let's assume product uses domain.com to get updates. domain.com one day might be owned by $badDude - that's a huge risk domain.com might return 404's - that's pretty terrible. What happens to domain.com once $business is now $noLongerBusiness? You can provide a method of flashing firmware onto the device itself (possible security risk?), but where do you get the files from? How do you verify they're safe? Then, you need to host the server software itself (depending on how it's coded, that ranges from quite simple to your worst nightmare), and you expect someone to keep that secure? The EU dictates GDPR compliance, which adds additional cost to maintenance. It's just easier and cheaper to just not bother with servers if the company can't keep them online.
- vbezhenar 7y ago
  Let user change server domain. Firmware must be signed by certificate with that domain. So now user can change server domain to his own server (or someone he trusts) and sign firmware with that key. It poses no security risk.

scarface74 7y ago

The manufacturer should never be able to either deactivate or otherwise disable the functionality of a device they sold in a form that requires a service to function. Exactly, why can’t I still dial in with my 2400 baud modem to get virus definitions for Norton Antivirus for my 386 that I bought in the 80s?

the8472 7y ago
You can dial your 2400 baud modem if you find another endpoint or operate one yourself, you're not bound to a specific provider. Fax machines still work after all. You can run norton antivirus for DOS in whatever state it was when it was last sold.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So now all I have to do is find someone who keeps a bank of 2400 baud modems and an updated list of virus definition files. As far as using as it was, what good is virus protection software that only works for viruses created in the 80s? Sure I can use a standalone gps device that I bought 10 years ago that doesn’t get updated but that doesn’t do me too much good navigating in a suburban area where most of the roads, houses and businesses didn’t even exist then.
  - afiori 7y ago
    But this is the point, manufacturers should offer improved features as incentives not intentionally and gratuitously deprecating older products.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      It is an optional feature in this case. He could go out and buy a regular cartridge and print from his same printer. I looked at the pricing. I would go for the free tier in a heartbeat- 15 pages a month and $1 for 10 (?) pages over that. I don’t print that often.
TeMPOraL 7y ago

GuB-42 7y ago

Isn't that tying? The manufacturer sells both the product and the service, and they can't be separated. Many countries have laws against it, or at least some forms of it. Furthermore, many countries now have some regulations regarding e-waste. Either now or in the making. And I expect "bricking" to be punished in some way. Right to repair comes to mind.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> The manufacturer should never be able to either deactivate or otherwise disable the functionality of a device they sold in a form that requires a service to function. I would go further: IMO, the manufacturer should never be able to sell the device that requires a service to function, period. They should only be able to either a) sell the device that can be optionally tied to a service - not necessarily manufacturer's - but otherwise works fine without it, or b) rent a device as a part of a service, remaining responsible for its maintenance. Model a) is how cell phones work - you buy a cell phone, a cellular connection is a separate service provided by multiple competing parties that are not the manufacturer. Model b) is how ISPs tend to work - they lend you hardware to connect to their network infrastructure, they replace it if it breaks, they take it away at the end of the contract, and they absolutely refuse to let you use their hardware with a different ISP.

kenjackson 7y ago

Why do you specify “device”. Shouldn’t the same be said for an app or service that is sold?