4 ms·
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
by 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 agoPrison seems very extreme to me. But maybe it's appropriate, I don't know.
- serf 3y agowhats 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 agoWhat 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 agoI'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 agoWe 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if this is CFAA but it is my personal conviction that that the CFAA is both overly broad and unnecessary and must be repealed.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 agoAre 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 agoGiven 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 agoI 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.
- helsontaveras18 3y agoYes, non-proud HP InkJet owner. You own the printer. However, you MUST be subscribed to their HP Whatever Program and pre-pay them the amount of pages you’d like to print on a monthly basis. You cannot print unless you are on the program. I did read these terms because it was insane, and I’m paraphrasing. It looks like they updated their program terms to force you to buy their ink. Honestly I thought that was already the case since I had tried using cheaper ink and the printer rejected it.
- ryao 3y agoDid 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.