4 ms·

This is one of many reasons we need an FDA for major software suppliers. The idea that a bug can be pushed to billions of devices with essentially no preventati

This is one of many reasons we need an FDA for major software suppliers. The idea that a bug can be pushed to billions of devices with essentially no preventative oversight is bonkers to me. The only check (other than internal controls which may or may not work in a move fast and break things environment) is litigation years after the fact which may not be a deterrent anyways. Imagine if pharmaceuticals worked the same way. Instead of requiring medical studies on small groups, any drug could just be released on the public. Who cares if it causes birth defects. Move fast and break things! Buyer beware. Once in a while you’d get a check for $20 in the mail after you find out you have some horrible incurable neurodegenerative disease. This is quickly moving from annoyance to public nuisance to public safety emergency. Self-driving vehicle companies can push updates over the air that not only brick the vehicles, but endanger 3rd parties who never signed 95 page Terms and Conditions contracts. Obviously not all software needs to be subject to this regulation but some of it does.

kneebonian 3y ago
If software had to go through the process of the FDA we'd be at the stage where VI was considered groundbreaking, and MS was considered a scrappy startup because IBM convinced regulators that anything but their business was dangerous.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  The point is to have independent review. Drug review is notoriously slow and expensive because of the nature of the industry: bodies can take a long time to show results and cost money to recruit. Software testing can be done quickly and safely. We can run tests on software that would be considered unethical on humans. The alternative is to move fast and break things which is maybe acceptable if that thing is a production database but far less charming if that thing is our emergency communications systems.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
delfinom 3y ago
>The idea that a bug can be pushed to billions of devices with essentially no preventative oversight is bonkers to me. Eh, in this case this is just a gap for the FCC who already regulates 911 and it's implementation that needs patching. The FCC can be absolutely brutal in their enforcement execution. It's just they move slow as rocks. > Self-driving vehicle companies can push updates over the air that not only brick the vehicles, but endanger 3rd parties who never signed 95 page Terms and Conditions contracts. The NHTSA regulates vehicles via the FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards). They are responsible for things as requiring e-braking, backup cameras and more. It's really their job and ability to crack down on self-driving vehicles and OTA in vehicles. They could very easily do it but the automakers of course throw tantrums and start getting their local senators to interfere. Now, why doesn't anything happen? Well, it's part regulatory capture, part rotting federal government due to extremists.

kneebonian 3y ago

If software had to go through the process of the FDA we'd be at the stage where VI was considered groundbreaking, and MS was considered a scrappy startup because IBM convinced regulators that anything but their business was dangerous.

janalsncm 3y ago
The point is to have independent review. Drug review is notoriously slow and expensive because of the nature of the industry: bodies can take a long time to show results and cost money to recruit. Software testing can be done quickly and safely. We can run tests on software that would be considered unethical on humans. The alternative is to move fast and break things which is maybe acceptable if that thing is a production database but far less charming if that thing is our emergency communications systems.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

delfinom 3y ago

>The idea that a bug can be pushed to billions of devices with essentially no preventative oversight is bonkers to me. Eh, in this case this is just a gap for the FCC who already regulates 911 and it's implementation that needs patching. The FCC can be absolutely brutal in their enforcement execution. It's just they move slow as rocks. > Self-driving vehicle companies can push updates over the air that not only brick the vehicles, but endanger 3rd parties who never signed 95 page Terms and Conditions contracts. The NHTSA regulates vehicles via the FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards). They are responsible for things as requiring e-braking, backup cameras and more. It's really their job and ability to crack down on self-driving vehicles and OTA in vehicles. They could very easily do it but the automakers of course throw tantrums and start getting their local senators to interfere. Now, why doesn't anything happen? Well, it's part regulatory capture, part rotting federal government due to extremists.