3 ms·

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.
    - waste_monk 4y ago
      > 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. From what I understand this is not the case, more recent production runs would have had the e-fuse code built in from factory but older units would have been purchased without it and had it pushed via firmware update at some point.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        I mean that anyone who would have had one of those firmware updates, would have had a licensed box that was receiving updates and had agreed to the terms of purchasing the box and associated software service. It wasn’t some action taken in a specific act of malice against anyone in particular. It was functionality baked into any device that was operational at the time the function was delivered.
        pannSun 4y ago
        That the terms were agreed to and the sabotage (sorry, anti-tampering) premeditated does not make this non-malicious. A contract may shield them legally, but morally makes their actions no less vile.
        kube-system 4y ago
        We’re talking about “malice” in the legal sense, because it is a legal requirement for the above claim of “vandalism” Malice in the terms of establishing mens era is purely dependent on what Cisco thinks about this feature, not what anyone else thinks about it.

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.
  - waste_monk 4y ago
    > 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. From what I understand this is not the case, more recent production runs would have had the e-fuse code built in from factory but older units would have been purchased without it and had it pushed via firmware update at some point.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      I mean that anyone who would have had one of those firmware updates, would have had a licensed box that was receiving updates and had agreed to the terms of purchasing the box and associated software service. It wasn’t some action taken in a specific act of malice against anyone in particular. It was functionality baked into any device that was operational at the time the function was delivered.
      - pannSun 4y ago
        That the terms were agreed to and the sabotage (sorry, anti-tampering) premeditated does not make this non-malicious. A contract may shield them legally, but morally makes their actions no less vile.
        kube-system 4y ago
        We’re talking about “malice” in the legal sense, because it is a legal requirement for the above claim of “vandalism” Malice in the terms of establishing mens era is purely dependent on what Cisco thinks about this feature, not what anyone else thinks about it.