3 ms·
It's surprising to me that the conclusion reached here is "they should use the kill switch more" instead of a horrified "kill switches and remote monitoring in
by fc417fc802 2y ago
It's surprising to me that the conclusion reached here is "they should use the kill switch more" instead of a horrified "kill switches and remote monitoring in purchased products shouldn't be a legal practice".
- mandmandam 2y agoThat was not the conclusion, in either the article or my comment. Hypothetically - if you learned that your product was being used to run over people "dead and alive, in the hundreds", so that "everything squirts out", would you shrug and fob off responsibility? Even when you already had the technology to shut down those machines installed, and major human rights orgs are warning of genocide? ... Or would you just argue that your machines shouldn't have had that capability in the first place? ... Do you see how far that's missing the point? Tbh even that would be better than Caterpillar's likely response, which was probably to try and book even more sales based on the 'success' of their machinery and the pending reconstruction.