4 ms·

Remind me, what happens to those disgruntled IT workers that sabotage company servers on their way out? But when Cisco sabotages the property of tens of thousan

Remind me, what happens to those disgruntled IT workers that sabotage company servers on their way out? But when Cisco sabotages the property of tens of thousands of consumers, it's okay because they're not your devices, they're Cisco's, you just paid for them? To be perfectly clear what I am saying: Every executive involved in this decision deserves jail, and Cisco have revealed themselves to be your enemy. You should treat them no different than someone that broke into your home and took a sledgehammer to your devices, with the tacit approval of the police and legal system. What would you do? Hope they stop hitting you? Pay the Danegeld and move on? Or use every legal and extra-legal means of retaliation and sabotage you could get away with? I.e. exactly what Cisco is doing to you. The only difference, besides one of power, is that consumers are under an illusion of civility.

kube-system 4y ago
Eh, I dunno about this case. I'm an advocate for consumer protections, but these aren't consumer devices, they're enterprise devices sold under the explicit notification that they'll only work with Cisco's cloud offering.
- pannSun 4y ago
  I buy an enterprise fleet of trucks for my company. Before purchase, the manufacturer, Toyota, notifies me they only work with Toyota-brand gasoline. My mechanics figure out that it's easy to re-fit them to run on generic gasoline, and proceed to do so. During the next on-site scheduled Toyota-authorized maintenance, the Toyota mechanics covertly and irreparably sabotage all the modified trucks. This is okay - I was explicitly notified the trucks only work with Toyota gasoline. And consumers suffer no repercussions when large companies extort smaller ones. And was it even sabotage? Those trucks were unsafe with anything but Toyota fuel, according to Toyota.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Your narrative is hyperbolic, but the reality is that most consumer protections for motor vehicles in fact don’t apply to fleets. Although some have exceptions for small fleets like the small business example you bring up. For large B2B purchases, it often doesn't make sense to treat purchasers like consumers. They are more explicit in their purchasing terms, and they have the means to evaluate their purchases in an informed manner.
  - iwillbenice 4y ago
- EricE 4y ago
  Yes, cost of hardware is subsidized with ongoing cloud subscription.
  - wtallis 4y ago
    There's a difference between having a general business model of selling hardware as a loss leader, and protecting that business model with contract terms. Cellular carriers sell you subsidized locked phones on contract, with an early termination fee to recoup that subsidy. Game console manufacturers just take the risk that you might not buy enough games/services to recoup that loss. If Cisco doesn't have something comparable to the smartphone contracts binding their customers, then bricking devices for unauthorized use is pretty indefensible. And it's especially bad if they do so for devices that are no longer on contract and have been resold to third parties, unless such sales are legally prohibited in the first place.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    Knowing the pricetags on said hardware v. the capabilities, they're almost certainly the opposite of subsidized.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > sold under the explicit notification that they'll only work with Cisco's cloud offering. Telling me that something I bought from you doesn't work a certain way doesn't give you the right to sabotage it if you later find out that I decided to try anyway.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Morally, maybe. Legally, I don't see any reason they can't.
    - EvanAnderson 4y ago
      That needs to be fixed.
    - wtallis 4y ago
      Legally, you stop owning a device after you sell it, unless you convince your customers to sign contracts agreeing otherwise.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        What's your point?
        wtallis 4y ago
        You're being deliberately obtuse, aren't you? Obviously, if Cisco sells their hardware outright and doesn't retain any ownership rights in that hardware post-sale, they have no legal grounds for damaging or destroying that hardware without the consent of the owner. That would simply be vandalism.
        kube-system 4y ago
        I’m not. The code to blow the fuses is already on the box. That software was delivered to the box under a license agreement which literally says the box will only work with that software. If you say they have no legal grounds to do this: what law did they break? It sure isn’t vandalism. The terms were consented to in a licensing agreement, and it is an anti-tamper feature by design. Both of these are solid defenses against a vandalism accusation. Vandalism isn’t “someone broke something”. Vandalism is an act that is specific and unconsented and malicious. There are many pieces of hardware which will break if used in a way different than they were designed. I understand that people don’t like DRM or anti-tamper measures, but that doesn’t mean these things are illegal. They’re very widespread, even outside of software.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > they're enterprise devices sold under the explicit notification that they'll only work with Cisco's cloud offering. And after that, when they've been cycled out in favor of newer hardware, all bets should be off. Instead, Cisco decides to actively contribute to the proliferation of e-waste. Besides, the licenses for said cloud offering cost about as much as the hardware (if not more!). If they're going to reserve the "right" to destroy hardware for which the customer has already paid, then it's asinine to sell the hardware in the first place; they could and should drop all pretenses and just lease it.

kube-system 4y ago

Eh, I dunno about this case. I'm an advocate for consumer protections, but these aren't consumer devices, they're enterprise devices sold under the explicit notification that they'll only work with Cisco's cloud offering.

pannSun 4y ago
I buy an enterprise fleet of trucks for my company. Before purchase, the manufacturer, Toyota, notifies me they only work with Toyota-brand gasoline. My mechanics figure out that it's easy to re-fit them to run on generic gasoline, and proceed to do so. During the next on-site scheduled Toyota-authorized maintenance, the Toyota mechanics covertly and irreparably sabotage all the modified trucks. This is okay - I was explicitly notified the trucks only work with Toyota gasoline. And consumers suffer no repercussions when large companies extort smaller ones. And was it even sabotage? Those trucks were unsafe with anything but Toyota fuel, according to Toyota.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Your narrative is hyperbolic, but the reality is that most consumer protections for motor vehicles in fact don’t apply to fleets. Although some have exceptions for small fleets like the small business example you bring up. For large B2B purchases, it often doesn't make sense to treat purchasers like consumers. They are more explicit in their purchasing terms, and they have the means to evaluate their purchases in an informed manner.
- iwillbenice 4y ago
EricE 4y ago
Yes, cost of hardware is subsidized with ongoing cloud subscription.
- wtallis 4y ago
  There's a difference between having a general business model of selling hardware as a loss leader, and protecting that business model with contract terms. Cellular carriers sell you subsidized locked phones on contract, with an early termination fee to recoup that subsidy. Game console manufacturers just take the risk that you might not buy enough games/services to recoup that loss. If Cisco doesn't have something comparable to the smartphone contracts binding their customers, then bricking devices for unauthorized use is pretty indefensible. And it's especially bad if they do so for devices that are no longer on contract and have been resold to third parties, unless such sales are legally prohibited in the first place.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  Knowing the pricetags on said hardware v. the capabilities, they're almost certainly the opposite of subsidized.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
josephcsible 4y ago
> sold under the explicit notification that they'll only work with Cisco's cloud offering. Telling me that something I bought from you doesn't work a certain way doesn't give you the right to sabotage it if you later find out that I decided to try anyway.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Morally, maybe. Legally, I don't see any reason they can't.
  - EvanAnderson 4y ago
    That needs to be fixed.
  - wtallis 4y ago
    Legally, you stop owning a device after you sell it, unless you convince your customers to sign contracts agreeing otherwise.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      What's your point?
      - wtallis 4y ago
        You're being deliberately obtuse, aren't you? Obviously, if Cisco sells their hardware outright and doesn't retain any ownership rights in that hardware post-sale, they have no legal grounds for damaging or destroying that hardware without the consent of the owner. That would simply be vandalism.
        kube-system 4y ago
        I’m not. The code to blow the fuses is already on the box. That software was delivered to the box under a license agreement which literally says the box will only work with that software. If you say they have no legal grounds to do this: what law did they break? It sure isn’t vandalism. The terms were consented to in a licensing agreement, and it is an anti-tamper feature by design. Both of these are solid defenses against a vandalism accusation. Vandalism isn’t “someone broke something”. Vandalism is an act that is specific and unconsented and malicious. There are many pieces of hardware which will break if used in a way different than they were designed. I understand that people don’t like DRM or anti-tamper measures, but that doesn’t mean these things are illegal. They’re very widespread, even outside of software.
yellowapple 4y ago
> they're enterprise devices sold under the explicit notification that they'll only work with Cisco's cloud offering. And after that, when they've been cycled out in favor of newer hardware, all bets should be off. Instead, Cisco decides to actively contribute to the proliferation of e-waste. Besides, the licenses for said cloud offering cost about as much as the hardware (if not more!). If they're going to reserve the "right" to destroy hardware for which the customer has already paid, then it's asinine to sell the hardware in the first place; they could and should drop all pretenses and just lease it.