4 ms·

> pass a law that says if you "tamper" with the device, all warranties expressed or implied are null and void This is a terrible idea. There is a very good rea

> pass a law that says if you "tamper" with the device, all warranties expressed or implied are null and void This is a terrible idea. There is a very good reason "warranty void if removed" stickers are unenforceable in the US due to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
"Well... we're waiting!" What's the very good reason? Because it's certainly not apparent to me.
- marcus0x62 4y ago
  The very good reason is that, as the parent commenter wrote, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty act makes it illegal for manufacturers to deny warranty service because of third-party modifications or repairs, unless they can demonstrate the third-party modification/repair caused a defect in the original product.
  - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
    So why should something so explicitly... tampering... as, say, REFLASHING an ECM for a diesel engine, NOT exempt the manufacturer from third-party stupidity? This is what I can't wrap my head around. Where's the limit of legal liability? IS there no limit? Are the people milling about my company, excusing every added layer of bureaucracy due to being liable if a customer chips their Dodge Ram, melting the exhaust system onto their garage floor, and burning down their house actually CORRECT?! THIS is the law that is causing us to augment our entire development chain with the ability to sign and encrypt our binaries to prevent this malfeasance?
    - marcus0x62 4y ago
      If the customer rechips their ECU and melts their exhaust into the floor, you can absolutely deny the exhaust repair under warranty. You just have to be able to prove the modification caused the problem in the first place. edit - and I tend to view encrypted ROMs, etc., as being more about pulling the kind of anti-consumer/anti-repair shenanigans discussed in the original article than any genuine concern about limiting liability. But maybe that’s just my bias peeking through.
      - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
        Which was my original point, perhaps lost in translation.
yarg 4y ago
It kinda depends on what's being done. There are a lot of physical systems that are capable of damaging themselves if they operate in an unconstrained manner - so the limitations are software defined. Look, for example, at what Stuxnet is capable of doing to industrial centrifuges. Now, it's somewhat unlikely that user defined software will cause damage comparable to active malware - but mistakes do happen. (marcus0x62's comment pretty much invalidates what I just said.)
fennecfoxy 4y ago
Laws can be updated/modified. If I have a software safety check in a giant combine harvester: if person detected <3m in front of harvester, emergency stop. Farmer finds it annoying so they install a "patch" they found on the Internets that disables it. Now there are two major options legally: * The law states that it's the company who is responsible for this safety feature, therefore the company tries to lock down the hardware/software as much as possible * The law states that modifications null/void certain parts of the warranty & other bits. If I have a warranty on a CPU, isn't it void if I overvolt that CPU to the point it dies? Don't you think it should be? Afaik it's accepted that warranties on cars are void if you do something stupid with them.

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago

"Well... we're waiting!" What's the very good reason? Because it's certainly not apparent to me.

marcus0x62 4y ago
The very good reason is that, as the parent commenter wrote, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty act makes it illegal for manufacturers to deny warranty service because of third-party modifications or repairs, unless they can demonstrate the third-party modification/repair caused a defect in the original product.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  So why should something so explicitly... tampering... as, say, REFLASHING an ECM for a diesel engine, NOT exempt the manufacturer from third-party stupidity? This is what I can't wrap my head around. Where's the limit of legal liability? IS there no limit? Are the people milling about my company, excusing every added layer of bureaucracy due to being liable if a customer chips their Dodge Ram, melting the exhaust system onto their garage floor, and burning down their house actually CORRECT?! THIS is the law that is causing us to augment our entire development chain with the ability to sign and encrypt our binaries to prevent this malfeasance?
  - marcus0x62 4y ago
    If the customer rechips their ECU and melts their exhaust into the floor, you can absolutely deny the exhaust repair under warranty. You just have to be able to prove the modification caused the problem in the first place. edit - and I tend to view encrypted ROMs, etc., as being more about pulling the kind of anti-consumer/anti-repair shenanigans discussed in the original article than any genuine concern about limiting liability. But maybe that’s just my bias peeking through.
    - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
      Which was my original point, perhaps lost in translation.

yarg 4y ago

It kinda depends on what's being done. There are a lot of physical systems that are capable of damaging themselves if they operate in an unconstrained manner - so the limitations are software defined. Look, for example, at what Stuxnet is capable of doing to industrial centrifuges. Now, it's somewhat unlikely that user defined software will cause damage comparable to active malware - but mistakes do happen. (marcus0x62's comment pretty much invalidates what I just said.)

fennecfoxy 4y ago

Laws can be updated/modified. If I have a software safety check in a giant combine harvester: if person detected <3m in front of harvester, emergency stop. Farmer finds it annoying so they install a "patch" they found on the Internets that disables it. Now there are two major options legally: * The law states that it's the company who is responsible for this safety feature, therefore the company tries to lock down the hardware/software as much as possible * The law states that modifications null/void certain parts of the warranty & other bits. If I have a warranty on a CPU, isn't it void if I overvolt that CPU to the point it dies? Don't you think it should be? Afaik it's accepted that warranties on cars are void if you do something stupid with them.