3 ms·

The issue isn't that TLS keeps changing. It needs to for security. The bad thing that leads to planned obsolescence is that devices stop receiving manufacturer

The issue isn't that TLS keeps changing. It needs to for security. The bad thing that leads to planned obsolescence is that devices stop receiving manufacturer updates so soon and can't be updated by third parties. My preferred solution would be a law that if a manufacturer needs or wants to stop producing security updates sooner than 10 years after sales ended, it'd either need to open-source everything or allow everyone who ever bought one to return it for a full refund.

baggy_trough 3y ago
That would be a terrible law. It would dramatically raise prices and reduce choice.
- thanksgiving 3y ago
  Not really. You’d have to make sure you either own the software you ship or that software is already available freely so you don’t get into the space cadet situation like Microsoft Windows. > Space Cadet Pinball was not originally written by Microsoft, but was rather obtained via licensing from a company then-known as Cinematronics. This means that there are restrictions on what can be done with the program, as spelled out by the license agreement. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20181221-00/?p=100535 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20181221-00/?p=10... The change would be you can’t ship software like this… I would say that is a net positive.
  - baggy_trough 3y ago
    Why should your preferred software licensing policies be legally mandated and binding on others such as myself?
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      If you don't want others' preferred software licensing policies to be legally mandated and binding on you, are you in favor of abolishing copyright for software?
      - baggy_trough 3y ago
        I think software authors should be able to decide their terms of use, so no.
        thanksgiving 3y ago
        That is the fundamental difference between free software and open source. Free software centers around the user. Everything else is a means to that end. Open source centers around the authors. This is fundamentally misguided. I couldn’t give two [deleted] about authors and what they want.
- hfkwer 3y ago
  I'm all for it. Let me pay twice the price for my phone and keep it ten years. It's a better deal for everyone, and firstly for the planet - no need to dig up rare minerals and waste energy and water to churn new phones all the time.
bruce511 3y ago
I do smile a bit when I see solutions yo problems described as "there shoild be a law". Firstly, the obvious, laws are local not global. Your proposed law would need to be ratified by 200 odd governments. This seems unlikely (Not least in the US which perfers not to ratify international laws). Given that China is least likely to care, and given that most really cheap phones originate there, I'm not sure your proposed law will work there. So, to summarise, suggesting global laws, while not necessarily wrong, is as fruitless as suggesting that we use magic pixie dust to solve the problem. Both have exactly the same liklihood of being adopted.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  It's totally possible for a US law to say something to the effect of "all goods manufactured in or imported into the US must...".
  - bruce511 3y ago
    The 5% of problem Android devices on the Internet are not manfactured or imported in the US. So the US law sounds great, but isn't solving a problem. Plus, given that the proposed law dictates -future- behaviour I'm not sure who, how or where an affected person (one who only has money for an ultra cheap phone they haven't updated in 7 years) would get relief from.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      To fix the "future behavior" problem, maybe the law could work like this: make selling a device at all require escrowing the full source code, and if the manufacturer stops releasing security updates, the government releases the source code.
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    only if it's interstate commerce
    - jowea 3y ago
rollcat 3y ago
It's an interesting idea, but it needs some refinement. > either need to open-source everything That'd be problematic, as in many cases the vendor doesn't even have the full source code (think: all of the embedded chips that run their own RTOS), let alone the legal right of relicensing it. Another thing is build reproducibility, the ability to actually flash/install the code, etc. It would be desirable to have all that, but it's far from simple. > allow everyone who ever bought one to return it for a full refund. Regardless of the actual physical condition of the item? I would say something like a trade-in program, where you get a % of the original value depending on overall condition. But then it gets tricky as it's difficult to write into law, what "good condition" does actually mean. What if the device has two screens, but only one is broken? What about components that tend to wear out or break during normal use (batteries, straps, hinges)? But having that process in place could also actually help us recycle more stuff. Also, consider the smaller companies, that don't have the resources to effectively give you a 10-year warranty on their product. That'd just get the bigger corps even more entrenched (while they figure out the "legitimate interest cookie" equivalent of still screwing you over).
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > That'd be problematic, as in many cases the vendor doesn't even have the full source code (think: all of the embedded chips that run their own RTOS), let alone the legal right of relicensing it. I consider making closed-source more legally difficult to be an additional benefit, not a downside. > Regardless of the actual physical condition of the item? Yes. The idea is that it'd be better for things to continue to be safely usable rather than to have to become e-waste, so if the manufacturer chooses the option that requires the latter, the deal should be as one-sided as possible against them. > Also, consider the smaller companies, that don't have the resources to effectively give you a 10-year warranty on their product. Software updates are a lot cheaper than full warranties, and if they make all of their stuff open-source then there'd be nothing else they have to do at all.
  - rollcat 3y ago
    > I consider making closed-source more legally difficult to be an additional benefit, not a downside. Then perhaps start with a copyright reform, otherwise I think you're trying to "solve" too many problems all at once. > so if the manufacturer chooses the option that requires the latter, the deal should be as one-sided as possible against them. Meaning only the already wealthy companies can afford to take the risk. You're further empowering the rich.

baggy_trough 3y ago

That would be a terrible law. It would dramatically raise prices and reduce choice.

thanksgiving 3y ago
Not really. You’d have to make sure you either own the software you ship or that software is already available freely so you don’t get into the space cadet situation like Microsoft Windows. > Space Cadet Pinball was not originally written by Microsoft, but was rather obtained via licensing from a company then-known as Cinematronics. This means that there are restrictions on what can be done with the program, as spelled out by the license agreement. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20181221-00/?p=100535 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20181221-00/?p=10... The change would be you can’t ship software like this… I would say that is a net positive.
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  Why should your preferred software licensing policies be legally mandated and binding on others such as myself?
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    If you don't want others' preferred software licensing policies to be legally mandated and binding on you, are you in favor of abolishing copyright for software?
    - baggy_trough 3y ago
      I think software authors should be able to decide their terms of use, so no.
      - thanksgiving 3y ago
        That is the fundamental difference between free software and open source. Free software centers around the user. Everything else is a means to that end. Open source centers around the authors. This is fundamentally misguided. I couldn’t give two [deleted] about authors and what they want.
hfkwer 3y ago
I'm all for it. Let me pay twice the price for my phone and keep it ten years. It's a better deal for everyone, and firstly for the planet - no need to dig up rare minerals and waste energy and water to churn new phones all the time.

bruce511 3y ago

I do smile a bit when I see solutions yo problems described as "there shoild be a law". Firstly, the obvious, laws are local not global. Your proposed law would need to be ratified by 200 odd governments. This seems unlikely (Not least in the US which perfers not to ratify international laws). Given that China is least likely to care, and given that most really cheap phones originate there, I'm not sure your proposed law will work there. So, to summarise, suggesting global laws, while not necessarily wrong, is as fruitless as suggesting that we use magic pixie dust to solve the problem. Both have exactly the same liklihood of being adopted.

josephcsible 3y ago
It's totally possible for a US law to say something to the effect of "all goods manufactured in or imported into the US must...".
- bruce511 3y ago
  The 5% of problem Android devices on the Internet are not manfactured or imported in the US. So the US law sounds great, but isn't solving a problem. Plus, given that the proposed law dictates -future- behaviour I'm not sure who, how or where an affected person (one who only has money for an ultra cheap phone they haven't updated in 7 years) would get relief from.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    To fix the "future behavior" problem, maybe the law could work like this: make selling a device at all require escrowing the full source code, and if the manufacturer stops releasing security updates, the government releases the source code.
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  only if it's interstate commerce
  - jowea 3y ago

rollcat 3y ago

It's an interesting idea, but it needs some refinement. > either need to open-source everything That'd be problematic, as in many cases the vendor doesn't even have the full source code (think: all of the embedded chips that run their own RTOS), let alone the legal right of relicensing it. Another thing is build reproducibility, the ability to actually flash/install the code, etc. It would be desirable to have all that, but it's far from simple. > allow everyone who ever bought one to return it for a full refund. Regardless of the actual physical condition of the item? I would say something like a trade-in program, where you get a % of the original value depending on overall condition. But then it gets tricky as it's difficult to write into law, what "good condition" does actually mean. What if the device has two screens, but only one is broken? What about components that tend to wear out or break during normal use (batteries, straps, hinges)? But having that process in place could also actually help us recycle more stuff. Also, consider the smaller companies, that don't have the resources to effectively give you a 10-year warranty on their product. That'd just get the bigger corps even more entrenched (while they figure out the "legitimate interest cookie" equivalent of still screwing you over).

josephcsible 3y ago
> That'd be problematic, as in many cases the vendor doesn't even have the full source code (think: all of the embedded chips that run their own RTOS), let alone the legal right of relicensing it. I consider making closed-source more legally difficult to be an additional benefit, not a downside. > Regardless of the actual physical condition of the item? Yes. The idea is that it'd be better for things to continue to be safely usable rather than to have to become e-waste, so if the manufacturer chooses the option that requires the latter, the deal should be as one-sided as possible against them. > Also, consider the smaller companies, that don't have the resources to effectively give you a 10-year warranty on their product. Software updates are a lot cheaper than full warranties, and if they make all of their stuff open-source then there'd be nothing else they have to do at all.
- rollcat 3y ago
  > I consider making closed-source more legally difficult to be an additional benefit, not a downside. Then perhaps start with a copyright reform, otherwise I think you're trying to "solve" too many problems all at once. > so if the manufacturer chooses the option that requires the latter, the deal should be as one-sided as possible against them. Meaning only the already wealthy companies can afford to take the risk. You're further empowering the rich.