20 ms·

Realistically, including avionics and medical devices where the software is restricted by regulation (in theory) and where the manufacturer is legally liable fo

Realistically, including avionics and medical devices where the software is restricted by regulation (in theory) and where the manufacturer is legally liable for failure of their device? More specifically, the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software. Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant?

shiroiushi 2y ago
>the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software. Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant? I can see an argument for this. Nothing forced Apple to design their hardware this way: they could have built licensing/compliance limits into the hardware itself. But they didn't want to do that because they wanted to use the same HW for all markets, and different governments have different rules about which frequency bands are allowed. Of course, this then brings up the question: if they did make slightly different HW per-market (perhaps with 1-time fuses), what happens when someone brings their iPhone from one country to another and they've modified it to ignore any new region restrictions (Apple could still use SW to force new restrictions, though they can't allow anything new because of the HW restrictions) and it's broadcasting on an unallowed band?
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  My guess about roaming between different domestic and international regions: A handshake with the tower tells the phone what is the network type, then software (firmware) controls what frequencies to use. I just cannot believe in 2024 that this problem has not been solved many times over. What exactly is you qualm / concern?
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    The point is that someone could modify the software to broadcast on disallowed bands: this is one of the main arguments against allowing user-modifiable software on smartphones (or any radio device).
    - leetcrew 2y ago
      so what? broadcasting on unauthorized bands is essentially painting a "come fine me" beacon on yourself. surely the FCC (or it's Japanese equivalent) can handle these sorts of revenue opportunities without Apple's help.
      - LeonB 2y ago
        If Johnny Nobucks makes an illegal broadcast using an Apple device - or rather if Johnny Nobucks makes an app for the express purpose of doing the illegal broadcast, and distributes it to 1 million other users on Apple devices — the FCC equivalent would faaaar prefer to sue 1 rich person (Apple) - with a chance of getting big bucks — than 1 million and 1 poor people — (Johnny no bucks and his users). But I’m pretty sure Apple would be able to put together a license model that makes them safe in this case, long before they were put in any legal danger. Anyone who claims it’s an intractable is using it for a different purpose -/ either trying to keep their sweet monopoly - or wishing they could sue apple.
    - throwaway2037 2y ago
      This is an interesting point. Is it not possible to buy a SDR (software-defined radio) and broadcast 4G/5G signal on disallowed bands? Also, I remember watching a video about repairing an ancient Nintendo Entertainment System. If you remove the faraday cage (metal box) around the video out signal, it accidentally broadcasts on disallowed bands. (I don't remember all the details.)
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Watch them start distributing their programs through cartridges (hardware) to circumvent this type of law, or something ridiculous like that.
wibbily 2y ago
> Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant? I mean, routers have worked like this for ages. OpenWRT has an entire page about tweaking your radio settings, and what could happen to you if you do. Why would Apple be held liable for something you did to your device? https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/transmit.power.limits https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/transmit.po...
- intrasight 2y ago
  >Why would Apple be held liable for something you did to your device Because Apple is worth trillions of dollars
  - LeonB 2y ago
    Yup. Regulators would rather sue Apple than the end users for the same reason John Dillinger chose to rob banks - “that’s where the money is.”
  - callalex 2y ago
    So is Cisco/Linksys
adrianN 2y ago
It is already legal to modify cars even though they are dangerous, so a working legal framework for that kind of stuff exists. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to handle the case where somebody chooses to run Doom on their pacemaker.
- dzhiurgis 2y ago
  > It is already legal to modify cars even though they are dangerous Not in places with regular inspection and mandated insurance. I.e. most civilised world.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    That's not quite right. You can totally modify them. The restrictions are around what's allowed on public roads, not what you do with the car. (You can drive whatever you want on your land) And even then, many modifications are ok and you can get special classifications for "unsafe" cars (like vintage ones without any safety features)
  - freeone3000 2y ago
    Nearly all car mods pass inspection. Look at what is actually checked: safety and emissions. Nothing about speed, appearance, sound, horsepower, ride height, or stock state. And moreover: if you modify a car that fails inspection, it’s on you, not the manufacturer!
    - sqeaky 2y ago
      You are correct in the larger sense, I am just pointing out details. Sound checks are part of checks in some places where there are sound limits on vehicles. Some "mufflers" are more like megaphones.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
MenhirMike 2y ago
> Realistically, including avionics and medical devices where the software is restricted by regulation (in theory) and where the manufacturer is legally liable for failure of their device? Yes, absolutely. The responsible party is the operator of said equipment, and if they tinker with it, it's up to them to be compliant with FAA/FDA/HHS/etc. regulations or face proper legal reprecussions. > More specifically, the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software. See above. We can already do that today with WiFi chipsets that can be made to use frequencies that are illegal in a certain country. It's on the operator to ensure compliance. Alternatively, device manufacturers are free to use components that only work in a certain frequency spectrum - but that wouldn't prevent an operator from using them in another country. We already solved those problems long ago.
Xelbair 2y ago
>Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant? no, because there's this weird concept that seems to be foreign to the modern software folk - Ownership. Owner is held liable for that, not device manufacturer.

shiroiushi 2y ago

>the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software. Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant? I can see an argument for this. Nothing forced Apple to design their hardware this way: they could have built licensing/compliance limits into the hardware itself. But they didn't want to do that because they wanted to use the same HW for all markets, and different governments have different rules about which frequency bands are allowed. Of course, this then brings up the question: if they did make slightly different HW per-market (perhaps with 1-time fuses), what happens when someone brings their iPhone from one country to another and they've modified it to ignore any new region restrictions (Apple could still use SW to force new restrictions, though they can't allow anything new because of the HW restrictions) and it's broadcasting on an unallowed band?

throwaway2037 2y ago
My guess about roaming between different domestic and international regions: A handshake with the tower tells the phone what is the network type, then software (firmware) controls what frequencies to use. I just cannot believe in 2024 that this problem has not been solved many times over. What exactly is you qualm / concern?
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  The point is that someone could modify the software to broadcast on disallowed bands: this is one of the main arguments against allowing user-modifiable software on smartphones (or any radio device).
  - leetcrew 2y ago
    so what? broadcasting on unauthorized bands is essentially painting a "come fine me" beacon on yourself. surely the FCC (or it's Japanese equivalent) can handle these sorts of revenue opportunities without Apple's help.
    - LeonB 2y ago
      If Johnny Nobucks makes an illegal broadcast using an Apple device - or rather if Johnny Nobucks makes an app for the express purpose of doing the illegal broadcast, and distributes it to 1 million other users on Apple devices — the FCC equivalent would faaaar prefer to sue 1 rich person (Apple) - with a chance of getting big bucks — than 1 million and 1 poor people — (Johnny no bucks and his users). But I’m pretty sure Apple would be able to put together a license model that makes them safe in this case, long before they were put in any legal danger. Anyone who claims it’s an intractable is using it for a different purpose -/ either trying to keep their sweet monopoly - or wishing they could sue apple.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    This is an interesting point. Is it not possible to buy a SDR (software-defined radio) and broadcast 4G/5G signal on disallowed bands? Also, I remember watching a video about repairing an ancient Nintendo Entertainment System. If you remove the faraday cage (metal box) around the video out signal, it accidentally broadcasts on disallowed bands. (I don't remember all the details.)
bee_rider 2y ago
Watch them start distributing their programs through cartridges (hardware) to circumvent this type of law, or something ridiculous like that.

wibbily 2y ago

> Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant? I mean, routers have worked like this for ages. OpenWRT has an entire page about tweaking your radio settings, and what could happen to you if you do. Why would Apple be held liable for something you did to your device? https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/transmit.power.limits https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/transmit.po...

intrasight 2y ago
>Why would Apple be held liable for something you did to your device Because Apple is worth trillions of dollars
- LeonB 2y ago
  Yup. Regulators would rather sue Apple than the end users for the same reason John Dillinger chose to rob banks - “that’s where the money is.”
- callalex 2y ago
  So is Cisco/Linksys

adrianN 2y ago

It is already legal to modify cars even though they are dangerous, so a working legal framework for that kind of stuff exists. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to handle the case where somebody chooses to run Doom on their pacemaker.

dzhiurgis 2y ago
> It is already legal to modify cars even though they are dangerous Not in places with regular inspection and mandated insurance. I.e. most civilised world.
- viraptor 2y ago
  That's not quite right. You can totally modify them. The restrictions are around what's allowed on public roads, not what you do with the car. (You can drive whatever you want on your land) And even then, many modifications are ok and you can get special classifications for "unsafe" cars (like vintage ones without any safety features)
- freeone3000 2y ago
  Nearly all car mods pass inspection. Look at what is actually checked: safety and emissions. Nothing about speed, appearance, sound, horsepower, ride height, or stock state. And moreover: if you modify a car that fails inspection, it’s on you, not the manufacturer!
  - sqeaky 2y ago
    You are correct in the larger sense, I am just pointing out details. Sound checks are part of checks in some places where there are sound limits on vehicles. Some "mufflers" are more like megaphones.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

MenhirMike 2y ago

> Realistically, including avionics and medical devices where the software is restricted by regulation (in theory) and where the manufacturer is legally liable for failure of their device? Yes, absolutely. The responsible party is the operator of said equipment, and if they tinker with it, it's up to them to be compliant with FAA/FDA/HHS/etc. regulations or face proper legal reprecussions. > More specifically, the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software. See above. We can already do that today with WiFi chipsets that can be made to use frequencies that are illegal in a certain country. It's on the operator to ensure compliance. Alternatively, device manufacturers are free to use components that only work in a certain frequency spectrum - but that wouldn't prevent an operator from using them in another country. We already solved those problems long ago.

Xelbair 2y ago

>Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant? no, because there's this weird concept that seems to be foreign to the modern software folk - Ownership. Owner is held liable for that, not device manufacturer.