4 ms·
We need a lemon-like law for consumer electronics. I wonder how this should apply to planned obsolescence of devices like smartphones. On one hand, it's obsce
by buu700 5y ago
We need a lemon-like law for consumer electronics.
I wonder how this should apply to planned obsolescence of devices like smartphones.
On one hand, it's obscene that manufacturers expect us to routinely spend ~$1k on a device that will in the best case scenario last for three years. There's no inherent reason that a flagship Samsung from 2017 shouldn't be perfectly serviceable today, and likewise for a Pixel 6 or iPhone 13 in 2030. However, the discontinuation of security updates makes it so that for all practical purposes they are not.
On the other hand, we can't exactly compel speech or labor. It would be one thing if there were a kill switch triggered after N years, but in this case the obsolescence isn't caused by an active update, rather a lack thereof.
Here's a possible middle ground:
1. Block device manufacturers from arbitrarily deprecating hardware. We can't compel the release of new software, but we can block the release of new software. Require manufacturers to submit a filing with request for approval before the release of any new mobile OS update, which must include an exhaustive list of all supported devices. In the event that a device is dropped from the list in a subsequent filing, it must be explained to the satisfaction of regulators that a specific hardware limitation makes continued support for the device problematic or impractical. Given approval to drop support for a device from an OS release, there would be no obligation on the manufacturer to backport security updates to prior releases.
2. Block component manufacturers from arbitrarily deprecating hardware. Any hardware included in a publicly available consumer electronic device must have its manufacturer commit to providing up-to-date driver software with support for the latest OS for the lifetime of the device. Failure to provide this within a certain time frame (say, three months) following the request of a device manufacturer would open them up to a lawsuit, wherein they could be compelled to publish the most recent release of the driver as open source / public domain. #1 would provide the incentive for each device manufacturer to proactively enforce this, as their entire product roadmap would be effectively frozen if they allowed component manufacturers to drag their feet.
3. Ban irreversible bootloader locking in new devices. Maybe an initial bootloader lock would be acceptable, but power users should have some way to override the lock and install a custom ROM without relying on vulnerabilities in the software.
- ipaddr 5y agoYour phone still works fine. Those security patches not being installed means probably very little.
- buu700 5y agoThey mean quite a lot to me personally, but for the sake of argument let's assume you're talking about the "average person". Sure, on some level that's arguably not wrong. Most individuals are unlikely to be personally targeted by hackers, and even if so might have less to lose from a hack than the cost of a new phone. Even taking that for granted, I would suggest that it's in the interest of the federal government to use its regulatory power for the purpose of improving our national cybersecurity at scale. Letting millions of people continue to run unpatched devices because the alternative is prohibitively expensive is a disaster waiting to happen.