3 ms·

I like Cory Doctorow quite a bit, but he's wrong a lot of the time. His views suffer from a combination of two flaws: 'magical group-think' might describe them.

I like Cory Doctorow quite a bit, but he's wrong a lot of the time. His views suffer from a combination of two flaws: 'magical group-think' might describe them. Despite this, his tech opinions are worthwhile because he keeps his finger on the pulse, and even his bad takes are representative of a large number of people in tech.

jeffbee 5y ago
I used to think he had some points, and for that matter I used to belong to the EFF before I got fed up with them, but after I saw him speak in San Francisco about the dangers of digital rectal thermometers, that was the moment when I realized that this is just a crank.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > after I saw him speak in San Francisco about the dangers of digital rectal thermometers, that was the moment when I realized that this is just a crank. While that's a funny example, it is hard to draw a sharp distinction between various categories of medical devices that range from CPAP machines to pacemakers to continuous glucose monitors, all the way up to MRIs and external beam therapy devices. Ultimately, if you own a device -- and it is hard to argue that you don't own something that is attached to, or implanted in, your body -- a whole set of rights should apply to your ability to inspect and control the associated data, hardware, and software. Any rule that excludes the manufacturer of a digital rectal thermometer from requirements to honor those rights becomes a huge loophole that will be exploited ruthlessly.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    Well, see, that's the thing. Those devices and those rules have existed for decades. Where is the ruthless exploitation?
    - webmaven 5y ago
      The exploitation would be of the loophole. Since there is no rule that says a device manufacturer has to disclose the code to anyone (not even to the FDA) in the first place, there is no need for a loophole. Device manufacturers largely keep their code secret (and yes, in a few cases where such code has had to be disclosed anyway because of a lawsuit or the like, it has been shown to be pretty crappy). So, I'm saying that if code disclosure and the like (ala Right to Repair, etc.) was required, but some subset of devices was exempt, manufacturers would do their best to cram their devices into the exempt category.

jeffbee 5y ago

I used to think he had some points, and for that matter I used to belong to the EFF before I got fed up with them, but after I saw him speak in San Francisco about the dangers of digital rectal thermometers, that was the moment when I realized that this is just a crank.

webmaven 5y ago
> after I saw him speak in San Francisco about the dangers of digital rectal thermometers, that was the moment when I realized that this is just a crank. While that's a funny example, it is hard to draw a sharp distinction between various categories of medical devices that range from CPAP machines to pacemakers to continuous glucose monitors, all the way up to MRIs and external beam therapy devices. Ultimately, if you own a device -- and it is hard to argue that you don't own something that is attached to, or implanted in, your body -- a whole set of rights should apply to your ability to inspect and control the associated data, hardware, and software. Any rule that excludes the manufacturer of a digital rectal thermometer from requirements to honor those rights becomes a huge loophole that will be exploited ruthlessly.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Well, see, that's the thing. Those devices and those rules have existed for decades. Where is the ruthless exploitation?
  - webmaven 5y ago
    The exploitation would be of the loophole. Since there is no rule that says a device manufacturer has to disclose the code to anyone (not even to the FDA) in the first place, there is no need for a loophole. Device manufacturers largely keep their code secret (and yes, in a few cases where such code has had to be disclosed anyway because of a lawsuit or the like, it has been shown to be pretty crappy). So, I'm saying that if code disclosure and the like (ala Right to Repair, etc.) was required, but some subset of devices was exempt, manufacturers would do their best to cram their devices into the exempt category.