4 ms·

Prison time? For bricking an $80 printer unless you use specific parts? I don't think so. Let's try to stay on planet earth here..

rvense 3y ago
I'm quite sure you can go to prison for stealing a printer. Why not for breaking one?
- bluGill 3y ago
  That is vandalism.
- eric-hu 3y ago
  The cynical answer might be that HP secretly updated their TOS so that the printer transaction is not a purchase but a long term rental on their terms. Not unlike “buying” a game on Steam or “buying” a Tesla. In both cases, you do something the vendor dislikes and your ownership is toast.
clipsy 3y ago
You deliberately misrepresent this as one $80 printer; in reality it is the sum total of all printers bricked by this, plus price gouging the printer owners who don’t want their printer bricked. If even a few dozen printers were bricked by this it would represent more lost value than the threshold for grand larceny in many jurisdictions; do you propose we let people who steal, say, $1600 of goods walk away scot free? And don’t waste your breath on fines —- those will only be passed on to the captive consumers as the “cost of business.”
- VWWHFSfQ 3y ago
  Prison seems very extreme to me. But maybe it's appropriate, I don't know.
  - serf 3y ago
    whats the threshold? how much damage has to occur until a CEO can be held to the same standards as a citizen? "corporations are people except for all that crime and punishment stuff."
  - rolenthedeep 3y ago
    What would happen if you went around to every house in your neighborhood and smashed everyone's printers? Would you be fined 0.01% of the cost of damaged items, or would you go to jail?
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  I'm curious if this violates U.S. code 1030(a)(5) [0] "(5) (A)knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; (B)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or (C)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss.[2]" [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
  - mcny 3y ago
    We should absolutely use every tool available to us. I anal and I don’t quite understand if this is CFAA but it is my personal conviction that that the CFAA is both overly broad and unnecessary and must be repealed. Meanwhile, it is a miscarriage of justice that prosecutors don’t seem to use CFAA against large corporations.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    Are we even sure that the customers legally own the printers? For instance, has anyone bothered to read the EULA that came with whatever bundled software someone installs now days to get the printer driver working? Even if there isn't surreptitious transfer of the hardware, they could certainly have a clause in there that authorizes them to do such things.
    - Bran_son 3y ago
      Given that it is near impossible to participate in modern society without patronizing contract-abusing corporations, we should ask ourselves: Do we want to be ruled by laws, or by contracts?
    - bluGill 3y ago
      I doubt you have have any problem convincing that printers are goods that you own and the EULA is meaningless. Eulas already are questionable from a legal standpoint as they don't really meet the standards of a contract.
- ryao 3y ago
  Did they misrepresent the printer? They advertise “dynamic security” in their marketing as if it were a good thing. If it was in the advertising and documentation, how is that misrepresentation? That being said, HP seems to mostly rebadge Canon printers loaded with their firmware, so I am not sure why people are still buying them. HP is just a middle man these days.
jxf 3y ago
Not saying they should go to jail, but OP is saying they're bricking potentially millions of printers, not one $80 printer.
alanbernstein 3y ago
Ink isn't a "part".
throwbadubadu 3y ago
It's not a 80$ printer but damage to society, or if you find that exaggerated hurting and lying to customers. Prison is hard, on the other hand let the scale of damage and intention decide.. more human would be just stick to penalties. They just must be high enough to hurt really, not ridiculous amounts you can price in. Like do it once and maybe get away with it, but do it twice or thrice and you will quite certainly bankrupt the company.
liendolucas 3y ago
I can't believe such a response. Is not the $80 dollar printer, is that HP is crossing a line, boarding the realm of illegality, misappropriating an electronic device that should be yours. And is also not money that you lose. Is frustration, time and feeling miserably deceit by a corporation that gives a shit about you. Also that you probably end up buying another printer and/or wasting time doing some research on printers online to not fall again into a dirty and dodgy maneuver like this.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mcv 3y ago
Poor people sometimes go to prison for far smaller crimes than this. The problem is that far too often, rich and powerful people are only held accountable if they hurt other rich and powerful people. And if it's a million $80 printers affected by this, it's an $80 million crime.

rvense 3y ago

I'm quite sure you can go to prison for stealing a printer. Why not for breaking one?

bluGill 3y ago
That is vandalism.
eric-hu 3y ago
The cynical answer might be that HP secretly updated their TOS so that the printer transaction is not a purchase but a long term rental on their terms. Not unlike “buying” a game on Steam or “buying” a Tesla. In both cases, you do something the vendor dislikes and your ownership is toast.

clipsy 3y ago

You deliberately misrepresent this as one $80 printer; in reality it is the sum total of all printers bricked by this, plus price gouging the printer owners who don’t want their printer bricked. If even a few dozen printers were bricked by this it would represent more lost value than the threshold for grand larceny in many jurisdictions; do you propose we let people who steal, say, $1600 of goods walk away scot free? And don’t waste your breath on fines —- those will only be passed on to the captive consumers as the “cost of business.”

VWWHFSfQ 3y ago
Prison seems very extreme to me. But maybe it's appropriate, I don't know.
- serf 3y ago
  whats the threshold? how much damage has to occur until a CEO can be held to the same standards as a citizen? "corporations are people except for all that crime and punishment stuff."
- rolenthedeep 3y ago
  What would happen if you went around to every house in your neighborhood and smashed everyone's printers? Would you be fined 0.01% of the cost of damaged items, or would you go to jail?
CoastalCoder 3y ago
I'm curious if this violates U.S. code 1030(a)(5) [0] "(5) (A)knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; (B)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or (C)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss.[2]" [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
- mcny 3y ago
  We should absolutely use every tool available to us. I anal and I don’t quite understand if this is CFAA but it is my personal conviction that that the CFAA is both overly broad and unnecessary and must be repealed. Meanwhile, it is a miscarriage of justice that prosecutors don’t seem to use CFAA against large corporations.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  Are we even sure that the customers legally own the printers? For instance, has anyone bothered to read the EULA that came with whatever bundled software someone installs now days to get the printer driver working? Even if there isn't surreptitious transfer of the hardware, they could certainly have a clause in there that authorizes them to do such things.
  - Bran_son 3y ago
    Given that it is near impossible to participate in modern society without patronizing contract-abusing corporations, we should ask ourselves: Do we want to be ruled by laws, or by contracts?
  - bluGill 3y ago
    I doubt you have have any problem convincing that printers are goods that you own and the EULA is meaningless. Eulas already are questionable from a legal standpoint as they don't really meet the standards of a contract.
ryao 3y ago
Did they misrepresent the printer? They advertise “dynamic security” in their marketing as if it were a good thing. If it was in the advertising and documentation, how is that misrepresentation? That being said, HP seems to mostly rebadge Canon printers loaded with their firmware, so I am not sure why people are still buying them. HP is just a middle man these days.

jxf 3y ago

Not saying they should go to jail, but OP is saying they're bricking potentially millions of printers, not one $80 printer.

alanbernstein 3y ago

Ink isn't a "part".

throwbadubadu 3y ago

It's not a 80$ printer but damage to society, or if you find that exaggerated hurting and lying to customers. Prison is hard, on the other hand let the scale of damage and intention decide.. more human would be just stick to penalties. They just must be high enough to hurt really, not ridiculous amounts you can price in. Like do it once and maybe get away with it, but do it twice or thrice and you will quite certainly bankrupt the company.

liendolucas 3y ago

I can't believe such a response. Is not the $80 dollar printer, is that HP is crossing a line, boarding the realm of illegality, misappropriating an electronic device that should be yours. And is also not money that you lose. Is frustration, time and feeling miserably deceit by a corporation that gives a shit about you. Also that you probably end up buying another printer and/or wasting time doing some research on printers online to not fall again into a dirty and dodgy maneuver like this.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mcv 3y ago

Poor people sometimes go to prison for far smaller crimes than this. The problem is that far too often, rich and powerful people are only held accountable if they hurt other rich and powerful people. And if it's a million $80 printers affected by this, it's an $80 million crime.