4 ms·

I can't speak to where it stands in the current legal framework, but personally I don't think the vendor of any product should have any rights to determine how

by skohan 5y ago

I can't speak to where it stands in the current legal framework, but personally I don't think the vendor of any product should have any rights to determine how it's used once the customer has paid for it.

endisneigh 5y ago
Why not just stop buying products that can’t do what you want?
- skohan 5y ago
  Why not just have common sense property rights enforced by law?
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    What’s common sense property right? Isn’t it common sense to not buy a toaster expecting it to be a server even though they both have circuit boards and technically can both compute? Still don’t get why don’t you just buy things that advertise the functionality you want.
    - skohan 5y ago
      A toaster is clearly not a general purpose computer. Should a car manufacturer be able to dictate which destinations you're allowed to reach with it?
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        Why isn’t a toaster a general purpose computer? There are toasters with wifi, touchscreens and other functionality. As for your car question - why not? No one would buy such a crippled device. The problem would resolve itself. If a car manufacturer sold a car without a steering wheel that self drove, perhaps people would buy the car in spite of the limitations. What they shouldn’t do, is buy a car advertised without a steering wheel and then complain that it doesn’t have one. https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Cooking-R180-High-Speed-Stainless/dp/B086H69SJ2 https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Cooking-R180-High-Speed-St...
        skohan 5y ago
        Come on, to assert that a "smart toaster" is not categorically different than a laptop or a smartphone is a bad faith argument. I think market forces don't work well in cases where you have a lot of vertical integration, and increasing consolidation. The "just don't buy it" argument only works in a competitive market with lots of offerings. What we have in the world of computers is more of a lesser-of-a-few-evils choice in virtually every technology choice.
    - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
      > Isn’t it common sense to not buy a toaster expecting it to be a server even though they both have circuit boards and technically can both compute? The key here is control, not computational power. An ideal law, in my opinion, would be one which prohibits building and selling any device that can run code in a way which allows the manufacturer to have more control over it than the legal owner after the sale has been completed. I think this idea is actually great because it never limits how limited a device can be, it just prohibits it from being made in a way in which the OEM/maker can control it more than the end user/new owner could. As an example, say you make a "smart toaster" with Wi-Fi and all that "good stuff" in it. If you just burn the firmware into the sillicon and that program has no way of updating itself, then you're good to go because both the company and the end user are stuck with the same level of control (In this context, "control" means "ability to make the computer parts run the code that you wish them to run") If you include the firmware in a writable EEPROM, and no further checks for the update firmware besides checksums, you're also golden, because then both the new owner and you (OEM) can exercise the same level of control over it. If, however, you decided to include signature checking using a public key burned in the sillicon, then and only then you would be violating this hypothetical law, because that creates a situation in which you, the OEM, can exercise more control than the device's legitimate owner after purchase. So, to summarize, from the OEM's point of view under this law, less control is good, equal control is good, more control is bad. I think this is what should be proposed as a new bill in U.S congress, although I have to admit the Open App Markets Act serves a great purpose as of right now for some specific devices.
    - will4274 5y ago
      I think it's reasonable that if your toaster has modifyable software memory, that if that modifiable memory is locked down cryptographically, that the toaster manufacturer be required to include that cryptographic key with purchase of the toaster, yes. We've had all these debates. It was called "TiVo". It should be illegal for manufacturers to sell hardware with capabilities specifically denied to the owner. That's not when any sane person would have thought "ownership" meant prior to 1980.

by skohan 5y ago

endisneigh 5y ago

Why not just stop buying products that can’t do what you want?

skohan 5y ago
Why not just have common sense property rights enforced by law?
- endisneigh 5y ago
  What’s common sense property right? Isn’t it common sense to not buy a toaster expecting it to be a server even though they both have circuit boards and technically can both compute? Still don’t get why don’t you just buy things that advertise the functionality you want.
  - skohan 5y ago
    A toaster is clearly not a general purpose computer. Should a car manufacturer be able to dictate which destinations you're allowed to reach with it?
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      Why isn’t a toaster a general purpose computer? There are toasters with wifi, touchscreens and other functionality. As for your car question - why not? No one would buy such a crippled device. The problem would resolve itself. If a car manufacturer sold a car without a steering wheel that self drove, perhaps people would buy the car in spite of the limitations. What they shouldn’t do, is buy a car advertised without a steering wheel and then complain that it doesn’t have one. https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Cooking-R180-High-Speed-Stainless/dp/B086H69SJ2 https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Cooking-R180-High-Speed-St...
      - skohan 5y ago
        Come on, to assert that a "smart toaster" is not categorically different than a laptop or a smartphone is a bad faith argument. I think market forces don't work well in cases where you have a lot of vertical integration, and increasing consolidation. The "just don't buy it" argument only works in a competitive market with lots of offerings. What we have in the world of computers is more of a lesser-of-a-few-evils choice in virtually every technology choice.
  - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
    > Isn’t it common sense to not buy a toaster expecting it to be a server even though they both have circuit boards and technically can both compute? The key here is control, not computational power. An ideal law, in my opinion, would be one which prohibits building and selling any device that can run code in a way which allows the manufacturer to have more control over it than the legal owner after the sale has been completed. I think this idea is actually great because it never limits how limited a device can be, it just prohibits it from being made in a way in which the OEM/maker can control it more than the end user/new owner could. As an example, say you make a "smart toaster" with Wi-Fi and all that "good stuff" in it. If you just burn the firmware into the sillicon and that program has no way of updating itself, then you're good to go because both the company and the end user are stuck with the same level of control (In this context, "control" means "ability to make the computer parts run the code that you wish them to run") If you include the firmware in a writable EEPROM, and no further checks for the update firmware besides checksums, you're also golden, because then both the new owner and you (OEM) can exercise the same level of control over it. If, however, you decided to include signature checking using a public key burned in the sillicon, then and only then you would be violating this hypothetical law, because that creates a situation in which you, the OEM, can exercise more control than the device's legitimate owner after purchase. So, to summarize, from the OEM's point of view under this law, less control is good, equal control is good, more control is bad. I think this is what should be proposed as a new bill in U.S congress, although I have to admit the Open App Markets Act serves a great purpose as of right now for some specific devices.
  - will4274 5y ago
    I think it's reasonable that if your toaster has modifyable software memory, that if that modifiable memory is locked down cryptographically, that the toaster manufacturer be required to include that cryptographic key with purchase of the toaster, yes. We've had all these debates. It was called "TiVo". It should be illegal for manufacturers to sell hardware with capabilities specifically denied to the owner. That's not when any sane person would have thought "ownership" meant prior to 1980.