4 ms·

One concern I also never see discussed is that for any type of electro-mechanical system, allowing the customer to change anything or maintain anything is a act

One concern I also never see discussed is that for any type of electro-mechanical system, allowing the customer to change anything or maintain anything is a actually a big liability issue. Let's be clear, it is pretty obvious that the whole tractor-as-a-service paradigm is extremely profitable. However allowing access to diagnostics/config/firmware for anything that controls heavy machinery can be a huge liability. You are a misconfiguration away from a work accident with injury or death.

bserge 5y ago
Is there a legal reason why they can't sign a waiver? You are always a misstep away from injury or death working on any heavy equipment. That has always been the case.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I would not trust the legal power of a waiver between two non governmental entities. When the public opinion wants someone to pay, the government will go after whoever can pay. I would want a clear law that prevents the company from being liable.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >I would not trust the legal power of a waiver between two non governmental entities So you don't trust the courts to enforce a contract? That's basically what a liability waver is, a bog standard contract that amends a prior (often implied by legal convention or state law) contract between the manufacturer and the product owner. >When the public opinion wants someone to pay, the government will go after whoever can pay FYI making one or both entities "governmental" doesn't do anything to change this.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      The effectiveness of a liability waiver is heavily dependent on the state it is being litigated in, as well as the precise wording of the contract and opinions of the people in the courts. https://recmanagement.com/feature_print.php?fid=200611GC03 https://recmanagement.com/feature_print.php?fid=200611GC03 > FYI making one or both entities "governmental" doesn't do anything to change this. I do not know what this means, but my point is that if one of the parties in the dispute is politically disliked, then they may not get a fair shake. In the context of this discussion, I can see “not having to deal with risks of liability waivers” as a supporting reason for why a company would want to lock down their devices or prevent people from tinkering with them. Then they can simply tell anyone coming after them that their product was clearly not meant to be tampered with and so tampering with it removed them from any liability.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
There is a century of case law from the motor vehicle world that make this a non-issue.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  The reason that happens with road vehicles is because you actually have diagnostics standard ISO 22901, which enforces at least partially interoperability. Actual config/ROM changes are still heavily protected by manufacturers and are limited to authorized dealers.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
    People have all kinds of tuners that they throw in their cars. And you never hear about a manufacturer being sued into oblivion because someone threw a garbage tuner with garbage settings into their car.
    - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
      As a simple counter example you can't tune Front Radar calibration for AEB (Automatic Emergency Breaking). A manufacturer can obviously do it. However, if that was allowed in the field, you would likely have whiplash injuries at best or fatalities at worse. My point is some things are 'open' in some popular vehicles for which people have reverse engineered stuff. But there is no liability interest from manufacturers in having this sort of thing in user space.

bserge 5y ago

Is there a legal reason why they can't sign a waiver? You are always a misstep away from injury or death working on any heavy equipment. That has always been the case.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
I would not trust the legal power of a waiver between two non governmental entities. When the public opinion wants someone to pay, the government will go after whoever can pay. I would want a clear law that prevents the company from being liable.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >I would not trust the legal power of a waiver between two non governmental entities So you don't trust the courts to enforce a contract? That's basically what a liability waver is, a bog standard contract that amends a prior (often implied by legal convention or state law) contract between the manufacturer and the product owner. >When the public opinion wants someone to pay, the government will go after whoever can pay FYI making one or both entities "governmental" doesn't do anything to change this.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    The effectiveness of a liability waiver is heavily dependent on the state it is being litigated in, as well as the precise wording of the contract and opinions of the people in the courts. https://recmanagement.com/feature_print.php?fid=200611GC03 https://recmanagement.com/feature_print.php?fid=200611GC03 > FYI making one or both entities "governmental" doesn't do anything to change this. I do not know what this means, but my point is that if one of the parties in the dispute is politically disliked, then they may not get a fair shake. In the context of this discussion, I can see “not having to deal with risks of liability waivers” as a supporting reason for why a company would want to lock down their devices or prevent people from tinkering with them. Then they can simply tell anyone coming after them that their product was clearly not meant to be tampered with and so tampering with it removed them from any liability.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

There is a century of case law from the motor vehicle world that make this a non-issue.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago
The reason that happens with road vehicles is because you actually have diagnostics standard ISO 22901, which enforces at least partially interoperability. Actual config/ROM changes are still heavily protected by manufacturers and are limited to authorized dealers.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  People have all kinds of tuners that they throw in their cars. And you never hear about a manufacturer being sued into oblivion because someone threw a garbage tuner with garbage settings into their car.
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    As a simple counter example you can't tune Front Radar calibration for AEB (Automatic Emergency Breaking). A manufacturer can obviously do it. However, if that was allowed in the field, you would likely have whiplash injuries at best or fatalities at worse. My point is some things are 'open' in some popular vehicles for which people have reverse engineered stuff. But there is no liability interest from manufacturers in having this sort of thing in user space.