4 ms·

For industrial devices, absolutely. For consumer devices, I think it can be a double edged sword. The more "secure" IoT devices are, the more locked down and di

For industrial devices, absolutely. For consumer devices, I think it can be a double edged sword. The more "secure" IoT devices are, the more locked down and difficult to jailbreak they are, which is bad for consumers and just leads to e-waste when a product gets abandoned by its manufacturer.

gjsman-1000 1y ago
Sometimes I wonder what would happen, as a beginning step, if we mandated the ability to purchase unlocked bare hardware. The law doesn’t need to require (in the first phase) that iOS or something be compatible with it, but you could at least walk into an Apple Store or Nintendo Store and buy the bare hardware, for your own purposes. Then we could claim it as being only about choice, and allowing software competition, without any plausible security risk.
rbanffy 1y ago
In this case, you would be liable by any damage your compromised devices might cause. Let's say you find updates in your house battery/inverter are annoying and, then, someone takes over it and cause a power surge in the neighborhood. That'd not be on the hardware manufacturer, who did their best to avoid such incidents, but on you, who clearly didn't. If you knowingly use obsolete and insecure devices, you might end up being liable for their actions.
- OsrsNeedsf2P 1y ago
  Are there such examples of this happening? Or are there only examples of corporations doing this and suffering no repercussions?
dandanua 1y ago
There are two types of security: one where a user is secure against hackers and the other one where manufacturer has "secured" its devices against users. The second type is strictly stronger, and it seems companies will not be interested in giving any real freedom to users, apart from running a predefined and restricted set of functions. In other words, you won't own a device, only the services it produces.

gjsman-1000 1y ago

Sometimes I wonder what would happen, as a beginning step, if we mandated the ability to purchase unlocked bare hardware. The law doesn’t need to require (in the first phase) that iOS or something be compatible with it, but you could at least walk into an Apple Store or Nintendo Store and buy the bare hardware, for your own purposes. Then we could claim it as being only about choice, and allowing software competition, without any plausible security risk.

rbanffy 1y ago

In this case, you would be liable by any damage your compromised devices might cause. Let's say you find updates in your house battery/inverter are annoying and, then, someone takes over it and cause a power surge in the neighborhood. That'd not be on the hardware manufacturer, who did their best to avoid such incidents, but on you, who clearly didn't. If you knowingly use obsolete and insecure devices, you might end up being liable for their actions.

OsrsNeedsf2P 1y ago
Are there such examples of this happening? Or are there only examples of corporations doing this and suffering no repercussions?

dandanua 1y ago

There are two types of security: one where a user is secure against hackers and the other one where manufacturer has "secured" its devices against users. The second type is strictly stronger, and it seems companies will not be interested in giving any real freedom to users, apart from running a predefined and restricted set of functions. In other words, you won't own a device, only the services it produces.