3 ms·
It is not controversial here, but I don't think it have been thought thoroughly here. You are asking for legislation forbidding hostile (or unexpected) updates
by j16sdiz 2y ago
It is not controversial here, but I don't think it have been thought thoroughly here.
You are asking for legislation forbidding hostile (or unexpected) updates.
But how about exemption for (or even mandating) "good" (e.g. security) updates? We all know that the botnet from IoT device is a real problem.
What about the nuisance from the "security best practice"? Like, disabling SSL1.0 for the best of security and break compatibility?
- danpalmer 2y agoI see your point, I wasn't trying to say that all updates should be prevented, but more that I think legislation is needed to categorise different types of updates, and then set requirements around each. For example, I think it could define a "security update" and require security updates for the reasonable lifetime of the software/device (the EU already requires warranty repairs for reasonable device lifetime). It could define "content" and make clear the expectations around removing access to content when licences expire or how companies must communicate timelines to buyers. I imagine it would explicitly not cover all updates though as for almost any update there will be some category of users who perceive it to be "hostile" because they don't like it, but I think that's just how software evolves and not something worth changing.