3 ms·

Here's what I want: by law, any device that is connected to the internet needs to have a warning on the box, similar to the one that's on cigarettes packaging,

Here's what I want: by law, any device that is connected to the internet needs to have a warning on the box, similar to the one that's on cigarettes packaging, stating the risks of that device being online (bricking/loss of service, data might be compromised in a cyberattack, etc.)

ronsor 2y ago
That will end up being as effective as California prop 65, better known as "that cancer warning everyone ignores."
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- morningsam 2y ago
  For it to be effective, all it needs is its complement: An easily recognizable green label saying "Doesn't connect to the internet", which is only allowed on the boxes of devices for which this is the case. Maybe some more levels in the middle like "only connects to the internet for firmware updates" (yellow) and "doesn't require internet access for core functionality" (orange). Basically Nutri-Score [1] for hardware. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutri-Score https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutri-Score
echelon 2y ago
Hard to enforce those laws across international borders. Especially if there's an escalation of geopolitical tensions. Imagine if a country could turn off power to US homes during a conflict. This is critical infrastructure we should be making at home.
Xelbair 2y ago
Here's what I want: by law, any device that i own should work perpetually until broken by me. If it requires 3rd party servers, let me configure alternatives. and if you sunset the servers completely you are mandated to release either: complete documentation how to create your own service to keep device working, or a full binary that supports ALL the features that were available throughout device's lifecycle. If you go bankrupt you are mandated to just open source your software in that case. and that's a minimum I'll settle on.
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  > If you go bankrupt you are mandated to just open source your software in that case. Or insurance that covers the complete refund cost of all assets sold. There are cases where you may be using 3rd party software that you license that you cannot open source. And, in that case, you're on the hook for refunding the cost of the item.
  - Xelbair 2y ago
    No, because in case of insolvency some parties can get priority, and the assets will be auctioned off to just cover the priority ones.
    - RHSeeger 2y ago
      That's why I said insurance to cover it. And the insurance would be dedicated to covering that; it wouldn't be accessible to pay off other creditors.
  - account42 2y ago
    Refunding the purchase price is rarely enough to make you whole. At there very least it would need to be inflation adjusted and also compensate you for any additional costs incurred (installation, any loss of income due to unavailable until a replacement can be found, time required to select a suitable replacement, emotional damage).
    - RHSeeger 2y ago
      I guess the other option would be to require that any licensed binaries for the software needed to include a transfer of license (for the purpose of rebuilding the software to a runnable state) to any parties that purchased the product using that blob licensed library.
- WJW 2y ago
  What about mechanical devices that simply wear out? Even electronic devices can fail due to circumstances controlled neither by you nor by the manufacturer, like lightning strikes introducing violent transients in the grid supply. Also, cool beans that that is the minimum you'll settle on but how on earth would anyone enforce that? Open sourced software is not enough by far to make something work perpetually: the software will need to be run somewhere and most likely (since you are talking about some sort of net-connected software if this is relevant in the first place) will need security patching to keep up with CVEs. Who is going to pay for that? I don't think it will be the bankrupt entity that stopped existing 10 years ago.
anon84873628 2y ago
That law won't mean much when people are importing products from other jurisdictions that don't have that law... Which is essentially what happened here. (The broken "law" being the exclusivity agreement). And if we assume that complying with the law somehow increases costs in the US market, people will still go buy the cheaper thing anyway. Which means you need to enforce the regulations on importing these things just as strictly as we regulate the import of cigarettes...

ronsor 2y ago

That will end up being as effective as California prop 65, better known as "that cancer warning everyone ignores."

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
morningsam 2y ago
For it to be effective, all it needs is its complement: An easily recognizable green label saying "Doesn't connect to the internet", which is only allowed on the boxes of devices for which this is the case. Maybe some more levels in the middle like "only connects to the internet for firmware updates" (yellow) and "doesn't require internet access for core functionality" (orange). Basically Nutri-Score [1] for hardware. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutri-Score https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutri-Score

echelon 2y ago

Hard to enforce those laws across international borders. Especially if there's an escalation of geopolitical tensions. Imagine if a country could turn off power to US homes during a conflict. This is critical infrastructure we should be making at home.

Xelbair 2y ago

Here's what I want: by law, any device that i own should work perpetually until broken by me. If it requires 3rd party servers, let me configure alternatives. and if you sunset the servers completely you are mandated to release either: complete documentation how to create your own service to keep device working, or a full binary that supports ALL the features that were available throughout device's lifecycle. If you go bankrupt you are mandated to just open source your software in that case. and that's a minimum I'll settle on.

RHSeeger 2y ago
> If you go bankrupt you are mandated to just open source your software in that case. Or insurance that covers the complete refund cost of all assets sold. There are cases where you may be using 3rd party software that you license that you cannot open source. And, in that case, you're on the hook for refunding the cost of the item.
- Xelbair 2y ago
  No, because in case of insolvency some parties can get priority, and the assets will be auctioned off to just cover the priority ones.
  - RHSeeger 2y ago
    That's why I said insurance to cover it. And the insurance would be dedicated to covering that; it wouldn't be accessible to pay off other creditors.
- account42 2y ago
  Refunding the purchase price is rarely enough to make you whole. At there very least it would need to be inflation adjusted and also compensate you for any additional costs incurred (installation, any loss of income due to unavailable until a replacement can be found, time required to select a suitable replacement, emotional damage).
  - RHSeeger 2y ago
    I guess the other option would be to require that any licensed binaries for the software needed to include a transfer of license (for the purpose of rebuilding the software to a runnable state) to any parties that purchased the product using that blob licensed library.
WJW 2y ago
What about mechanical devices that simply wear out? Even electronic devices can fail due to circumstances controlled neither by you nor by the manufacturer, like lightning strikes introducing violent transients in the grid supply. Also, cool beans that that is the minimum you'll settle on but how on earth would anyone enforce that? Open sourced software is not enough by far to make something work perpetually: the software will need to be run somewhere and most likely (since you are talking about some sort of net-connected software if this is relevant in the first place) will need security patching to keep up with CVEs. Who is going to pay for that? I don't think it will be the bankrupt entity that stopped existing 10 years ago.

anon84873628 2y ago

That law won't mean much when people are importing products from other jurisdictions that don't have that law... Which is essentially what happened here. (The broken "law" being the exclusivity agreement). And if we assume that complying with the law somehow increases costs in the US market, people will still go buy the cheaper thing anyway. Which means you need to enforce the regulations on importing these things just as strictly as we regulate the import of cigarettes...