3 ms·
> Liability lawsuits drive a lot of this :/ That's the official line a lot of the vendors responsible will push, but the evidence for that is...lacking. Compa
by wolrah 7mo ago
> Liability lawsuits drive a lot of this :/
That's the official line a lot of the vendors responsible will push, but the evidence for that is...lacking.
Compare that to the simple reality that doing this is more profitable and devices that can't be easily repaired lead to more consistent sales. Capitalism gonna capitalism.
- dmoy 7mo agoYea I don't doubt that capitalist greed goes into it too. And in the case of true fear of liability lawsuits, even that also has capitalist greed undertones: Imagine you're building random-iot-device-with-a-lithium-battery. You could: 1. Build the whole thing so it's easily hackable Your lawyers point out prior art in liability cases around exploding/burning lithium-powered-devices and won't really approve release without some precautionary measures 2. Properly isolate and test the battery and related systems, ensure they can't possibly overheat even in the face of arbitrary input from the rest of the system, if modified. Lock down the battery parts, leave everything else open. 3. Do some testing on the whole-ass system to assuage your lawyers, and then lock the whole thing down 3 is typically cheaper, a lot of companies then open door 3 instead of 2. Capitalism and liability lawsuits tag teaming here imo Side note, the reason we have a litigious society imo is because most companies reach for door #4 4. Yolo, release unsafe product even with company's own firmware, fires and explosions ensue, people are maimed and die, lawsuits follow. Because lawsuits are the only recourse, we don't hold the companies criminally liable or anything.
- hapless 7mo agoYou don't have to actually do #3. What most companies do is just get a UL certification (to reassure consumers) and put the label "no user-serviceable parts inside" on the case (to meet UL mandates for safety) That's more than enough to avoid civil liability for user stupidity Locking shit down is something you do for other reasons entirely
- drnick1 7mo ago> Capitalism gonna capitalism. Then respond with more capitalism and don't buy devices that are not user-serviceable. - Buy a PC instead of a PS5/Xbox - Buy appliances that are compatible with Home Assistant, or stick to "dumb" devices - Refuse to connect to the Internet devices such as TVs and cars that do not strictly need it, regardless of "convenience" - Reject proprietary software and apps - Only buy phones whose bootloader is unlockable, so that the stock OS can be replaced by something user-controlled
- johnnyanmac 7mo agoI've done all those at some point. But the lions share of people aren't even aware these issues exist. Many when brought up don't care. This isn't really an issue where capitalism prevails in favor of the user like with some privacy issues. We need legislation to pass.
- drnick1 7mo ago> We need legislation to pass. Laws don't prevent firms from doing illegal things. Without public awareness, nothing will change.
- riddley 7mo agoDo laws serve any purpose? If so, what?
- drnick1 7mo agoThey do, when they are enforceable and the punishment for violations is credible. But in the tech world, punishment for things such as privacy violations and market abuse most often amounts to a trivial fine, and business then continues as usual.
- johnnyanmac 7mo agoLaws aren't the fine step, but the biggest one. You'd be surprised how many companies comply without any coaxing once they are made aware of new legislator. And for those that don't: we now have a legal channel to report them to. Having the government enforce its laws is more effective than trying to arrange a general boycott.