9 ms·

We should be pushing some of the "repair" legislation to include clauses about, "If you're no longer going to provide OS updates for a device, you must provide

by Syonyk 4y ago

We should be pushing some of the "repair" legislation to include clauses about, "If you're no longer going to provide OS updates for a device, you must provide a way to install alternate firmware on it." We'd either get continued updates for devices, or a way to install something else. Either way is a win.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
This times 1 million
heavyset_go 4y ago
> you must provide a way to install alternate firmware on it. Seems like a common sense measure that shouldn't be conditional on whether or not OS updates stop. PCs have worked this way for decades, and some phones and tablets, as well. It's a shame that competition is limited like this.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  By accident, as IBM failed to prevent Compaq's reverse engineering in court.
- Syonyk 4y ago
  I would certainly prefer that this be the case, but I also don't think it's particularly likely to pass as legislation - because there are plenty of devices that are sold at a loss, expecting to make it up on other later software sales. I believe almost all modern game consoles live in this space, I would expect Amazon's Kindle devices are in this category, etc. And while I don't like this model and won't participate in such ecosystems, neither can I deny that such things are fairly common and popular. Forcing open firmware on those would likely generate a much larger, and, frankly, better funded response to being able to maintain a locked down firmware for the useful life of the system. Picking specifically on the "no longer receiving firmware updates" category makes it much harder for those companies to argue that having to do this will hurt their profits or hinder their ability to recover losses on subsidized hardware - they literally don't care enough to bother updating them at this point, so it would be much harder for them to make these claims. You abandon a device once you're done earning your money back on it. I doubt Sony, for instance, still expects much return on deployed Playstation 3s. And it's exceedingly hard for Apple to argue that they're making any money on an iPhone 3GS or something, because it doesn't even run modern app store packages. So my logic here is that "you must unlock abandoned devices for those who care" is likely to be winnable, whereas "All devices must be unlockable from day 1" isn't.
  - chongli 4y ago
    I believe almost all modern game consoles live in this space Nintendo does not sell their consoles at a loss. They make a profit on every console sold. Their hardware is never bleeding edge but they make up for it on the strength of their first party franchises and their innovative controllers/input devices.
  - dont__panic 4y ago
    > while I don't like this model and won't participate in such ecosystems I've tried to keep away from ecosystems like this, but the way is very much dark and full of terrors. As far as I can tell, a smartphone is a prerequisite for participation in much of society today. What phone do you use -- an unlocked Android model, I'd guess? Or something like the Fairphone that I can't get in the USA?
  - cdmckay 4y ago
    Yeah I like the idea of if it’s no longer receiving firmware updates but I suspect the tech companies would get around that by releasing symbolic updates that just bump the version number. I would prefer something like after 5 years they have to unlock the bootloader and allow people to install anything. So you have 5 years to make a profit and then you have to open up the device.
    - bacchusracine 4y ago
      > I suspect the tech companies would get around that by releasing symbolic updates that just bump the version number. Wouldn't that be invalidated by games no longer working? They were very eager to move to cloud gaming, always on networking style DRM but once the servers are down and the games become less and less functional or stop working altogether that excuse goes bye-bye, doesn't it?
  - parkingrift 4y ago
    Who cares what these companies want or what their business models are? Dumb business models are dumb and it’s not our job to consider their dumb business models when making legislation. We wouldn’t even be having a discussion like this in a functioning democracy. But instead we’re discussing whether the big corporate bribery machine will get in the way of completely reasonable legislation.
ck2 4y ago
They'll never legislate mandatory firmware open-source after X years but mandatory bootloader unlock after 5, 10 years seems perfectly reasonable to empower consumers. Could happen in the EU but will never ever happen in the USA And it's not just phones and tablets, there are millions of smart-watches out there like from Garmin that become paperweights
derefr 4y ago
Wouldn't this necessarily include "devices" like nuclear-reactor control systems? Because AFAICT there's no clear line where a "computer" stops and something like that starts. I imagine there would need to be a special protections in the clause for "secure embedded industrial" devices like that — something like: "if opening your company's devices to free modification would create a national security risk, then your company is not allowed to go out of business in the first place; instead, bankruptcy of your company will lead to immediate nationalization of such assets as are required to keep your devices up-to-date with secure firmware in perpetuity." (It's actually kind of weird that there isn't already anything like this on the books in America; so it was possible for the private sector to e.g. shut down all the 5.25"-floppy-disk factories, despite military missile control systems still actively depending on them. You'd think governments would wield at least contract law — if not legislation — more eagerly, to protect "critical logisticla dependencies" like these.)
- Syonyk 4y ago
  I haven't figured out the exact wording or requirements - feedback welcome. My goal is not to discourage "Fully Finished" sort of products - if you have some widget that does X, and you've optimized the firmware to do X, and it won't need to do anything else beyond X, then... OK, good job, please make more things. The target here is "consumer electronics" sort of devices - phones, speakers, fridges, washers, etc. And I don't think it has to be a "default unlocked" process, so much as "Some process to allow you to boot what you want." And if that's "I submit a blob upstream and they sign it so it can shim my kernel," well... not great, but OK. However, the reality for something like your scenario, nuclear control systems, is that anyone who can get close enough (physically or digitally) to one for it to matter isn't going to be hindered by some pesky firmware lock.
  - derefr 4y ago
    > anyone who can get close enough (physically or digitally) to one for it to matter isn't going to be hindered by some pesky firmware lock. I mean, being unable to modify secure embedded systems by getting close to them "digitally" is the whole positive point of the much-reviled-in-personal-computing Trusted Computing Base paradigm. If Intel CPUs can cryptographically verify that microcode updates come only from Intel, and that the bootloader ROM is signed by the manufacturer key stored in the CPU's own TPM, then the microcontrollers in critical systems like these should be doing no less. "Unlocking" such a system to free modification by the installation IT administrator really does lose you some quite-powerful security advantages vs. having an end-to-end-secure logistical pipeline for updates direct from the manufacturer to your microcontroller, that not even the site admin can tamper with. Also, on a tangent — with really-critical embedded systems, there are ways to prevent physical proximity from giving someone the keys to the kingdom as well. For example: making the system a distributed-majority-consensus system run across several secure installations, where you'd need to physically penetrate several installations at once — hopefully all with independently-designed security policies — in order to get the system as a whole to do something else. Where any timing slip-ups would reveal one of the systems as faulty, and prompt an immediate [probably armed] investigation response.
Jemm 4y ago
They will just push updates the incrementally cripple the device. They are already doing it anyway.
khalilravanna 4y ago
I feel like this is especially important for game consoles. The 3DS store is on its way to being shut down and with it a set of digital-only games will be effectively unplayable for most people going forward. It feels correct to me that if the creator of the platform kills off the only way to pay the creators for the games you should be able to install alternate firmware and play them for free.

by Syonyk 4y ago

mensetmanusman 4y ago

This times 1 million

heavyset_go 4y ago

> you must provide a way to install alternate firmware on it. Seems like a common sense measure that shouldn't be conditional on whether or not OS updates stop. PCs have worked this way for decades, and some phones and tablets, as well. It's a shame that competition is limited like this.

pjmlp 4y ago
By accident, as IBM failed to prevent Compaq's reverse engineering in court.
Syonyk 4y ago
I would certainly prefer that this be the case, but I also don't think it's particularly likely to pass as legislation - because there are plenty of devices that are sold at a loss, expecting to make it up on other later software sales. I believe almost all modern game consoles live in this space, I would expect Amazon's Kindle devices are in this category, etc. And while I don't like this model and won't participate in such ecosystems, neither can I deny that such things are fairly common and popular. Forcing open firmware on those would likely generate a much larger, and, frankly, better funded response to being able to maintain a locked down firmware for the useful life of the system. Picking specifically on the "no longer receiving firmware updates" category makes it much harder for those companies to argue that having to do this will hurt their profits or hinder their ability to recover losses on subsidized hardware - they literally don't care enough to bother updating them at this point, so it would be much harder for them to make these claims. You abandon a device once you're done earning your money back on it. I doubt Sony, for instance, still expects much return on deployed Playstation 3s. And it's exceedingly hard for Apple to argue that they're making any money on an iPhone 3GS or something, because it doesn't even run modern app store packages. So my logic here is that "you must unlock abandoned devices for those who care" is likely to be winnable, whereas "All devices must be unlockable from day 1" isn't.
- chongli 4y ago
  I believe almost all modern game consoles live in this space Nintendo does not sell their consoles at a loss. They make a profit on every console sold. Their hardware is never bleeding edge but they make up for it on the strength of their first party franchises and their innovative controllers/input devices.
- dont__panic 4y ago
  > while I don't like this model and won't participate in such ecosystems I've tried to keep away from ecosystems like this, but the way is very much dark and full of terrors. As far as I can tell, a smartphone is a prerequisite for participation in much of society today. What phone do you use -- an unlocked Android model, I'd guess? Or something like the Fairphone that I can't get in the USA?
- cdmckay 4y ago
  Yeah I like the idea of if it’s no longer receiving firmware updates but I suspect the tech companies would get around that by releasing symbolic updates that just bump the version number. I would prefer something like after 5 years they have to unlock the bootloader and allow people to install anything. So you have 5 years to make a profit and then you have to open up the device.
  - bacchusracine 4y ago
    > I suspect the tech companies would get around that by releasing symbolic updates that just bump the version number. Wouldn't that be invalidated by games no longer working? They were very eager to move to cloud gaming, always on networking style DRM but once the servers are down and the games become less and less functional or stop working altogether that excuse goes bye-bye, doesn't it?
- parkingrift 4y ago
  Who cares what these companies want or what their business models are? Dumb business models are dumb and it’s not our job to consider their dumb business models when making legislation. We wouldn’t even be having a discussion like this in a functioning democracy. But instead we’re discussing whether the big corporate bribery machine will get in the way of completely reasonable legislation.

ck2 4y ago

They'll never legislate mandatory firmware open-source after X years but mandatory bootloader unlock after 5, 10 years seems perfectly reasonable to empower consumers. Could happen in the EU but will never ever happen in the USA And it's not just phones and tablets, there are millions of smart-watches out there like from Garmin that become paperweights

derefr 4y ago

Wouldn't this necessarily include "devices" like nuclear-reactor control systems? Because AFAICT there's no clear line where a "computer" stops and something like that starts. I imagine there would need to be a special protections in the clause for "secure embedded industrial" devices like that — something like: "if opening your company's devices to free modification would create a national security risk, then your company is not allowed to go out of business in the first place; instead, bankruptcy of your company will lead to immediate nationalization of such assets as are required to keep your devices up-to-date with secure firmware in perpetuity." (It's actually kind of weird that there isn't already anything like this on the books in America; so it was possible for the private sector to e.g. shut down all the 5.25"-floppy-disk factories, despite military missile control systems still actively depending on them. You'd think governments would wield at least contract law — if not legislation — more eagerly, to protect "critical logisticla dependencies" like these.)

Syonyk 4y ago
I haven't figured out the exact wording or requirements - feedback welcome. My goal is not to discourage "Fully Finished" sort of products - if you have some widget that does X, and you've optimized the firmware to do X, and it won't need to do anything else beyond X, then... OK, good job, please make more things. The target here is "consumer electronics" sort of devices - phones, speakers, fridges, washers, etc. And I don't think it has to be a "default unlocked" process, so much as "Some process to allow you to boot what you want." And if that's "I submit a blob upstream and they sign it so it can shim my kernel," well... not great, but OK. However, the reality for something like your scenario, nuclear control systems, is that anyone who can get close enough (physically or digitally) to one for it to matter isn't going to be hindered by some pesky firmware lock.
- derefr 4y ago
  > anyone who can get close enough (physically or digitally) to one for it to matter isn't going to be hindered by some pesky firmware lock. I mean, being unable to modify secure embedded systems by getting close to them "digitally" is the whole positive point of the much-reviled-in-personal-computing Trusted Computing Base paradigm. If Intel CPUs can cryptographically verify that microcode updates come only from Intel, and that the bootloader ROM is signed by the manufacturer key stored in the CPU's own TPM, then the microcontrollers in critical systems like these should be doing no less. "Unlocking" such a system to free modification by the installation IT administrator really does lose you some quite-powerful security advantages vs. having an end-to-end-secure logistical pipeline for updates direct from the manufacturer to your microcontroller, that not even the site admin can tamper with. Also, on a tangent — with really-critical embedded systems, there are ways to prevent physical proximity from giving someone the keys to the kingdom as well. For example: making the system a distributed-majority-consensus system run across several secure installations, where you'd need to physically penetrate several installations at once — hopefully all with independently-designed security policies — in order to get the system as a whole to do something else. Where any timing slip-ups would reveal one of the systems as faulty, and prompt an immediate [probably armed] investigation response.

Jemm 4y ago

They will just push updates the incrementally cripple the device. They are already doing it anyway.

khalilravanna 4y ago

I feel like this is especially important for game consoles. The 3DS store is on its way to being shut down and with it a set of digital-only games will be effectively unplayable for most people going forward. It feels correct to me that if the creator of the platform kills off the only way to pay the creators for the games you should be able to install alternate firmware and play them for free.