3 ms·
It depends on how you see those devices. On one hand it's a block of hardware (like an appliance) on the other hand it's a CPU and RAM and storage etc. This is
by oneplane 4y ago
It depends on how you see those devices. On one hand it's a block of hardware (like an appliance) on the other hand it's a CPU and RAM and storage etc. This is a weird gradient where the same could be said for routers (and we kind-of do that), but also for Smart TV's (which are left out in the cold, generally), and other devices with smarts in them (or: a CPU, memory and storage).
The general problem lies with the utility for mass-market products, even if you re-purpose it, how widely spread can you do that? How feasible are most ideas on what to do with products that are end-of-life? A lot of existing things are just dumped and forgotten about like thin clients, settopboxes (same hardware as Raspberry Pis) and entertainment systems in cars.
We like to point at manufacturers and products from well known brands but in reality it applies on a much larger scale, yet the infeasibility scales with it all the same. Some of it might be due to legitimate PKI-based lockouts, while other reasons might simply be the lack of broad interest and governmental policy.
In an ideal world the specifications on how the devices work and end-of-life disablement of lockouts would be a reasonable bar to set; it'd be hard to argue that it's bad for commerce, and implementation-wise even PKI-based systems have easy ways to facilitate this. The cost would be enablement from the manufacturer's side and for some brands the connection between their brand name and a device they cannot control the presentation of. I don't know how to solve that but it's definitely a much larger problem than people in tech might think of.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ISO-morphism 4y ago> ... for some brands the connection between their brand name and a device they cannot control the presentation of... larger problem. They should not have this control. Lamborghini doesn't get to stop crypto kids from using non-Lamborghini paint to put anime girls on their cars. Apple shouldn't get to stop users from using non-Apple software to draw pixels on their screens. The "their" refers to the owner of the product, not the owner of the brand.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoThe equivalent here is if those crypto kids tried to flash the Lamborghini’s transmission or engine ECU firmware with pictures of anime girls. That would definitely merit much closer scrutiny since if the vehicle ever crashes, who is at fault? Who is liable if the tranmission suddenly seized up and the vehicle plows into a group of children at a crossing? And if the ECU is destroyed during the crash wouldn’t determining faulty firmware be impossible so Lamborghini would get blamed regardless? So then the only sensible course of action is to lock it down such that no one can ever change sensitive firmware without Lamborghini approval. This isn’t limited to cars, a Linux iPad could suffer a catastrophic battery explosion on a flight which causes significant consequences, who is liable?
- oneplane 4y agoYou can put stickers and background pictures all over your brand devices too, that's not really a problem. We're talking about circumventing secure enclaves, which I'm pretty sure Lamborghini will sue you (and win) for, same as Sony and Nintendo for example.