6 ms·

screwing over innocent consumers who buy a device The consumer isn't exactly innocent. Hold on, hear me out. It's similar to black market goods. A consumer w

screwing over innocent consumers who buy a device The consumer isn't exactly innocent. Hold on, hear me out. It's similar to black market goods. A consumer wants the lowest possible price. It turns out the goods he bought are stolen property. He didn't know, but he is not waived of responsibility. If he was truly unwitting he will not be prosecuted, but the goods will still be repossessed, etc. Basically, it is the consumer's drive for the lowest price that creates the market for these illicit goods, so they are not blameless. Additionally, illicit supply chains are hard to attack and often times the consumer "really should have known better", so one of the ways to attack that supply chain is by slapping the hand of the consumer who patronized it, whether or not they actually meant to buy stolen goods. It's hard to deal with the "Well it was cheap and he was shady but I just didn't ask too many questions" purchases; responsibility is very diffuse, with everyone doing their best to avoid responsibility.

13 12y ago
No, that's not the case here. Fake FTDI chips are going to be used in absolutely everything, products from Alibaba to name brand professional stuff. It's pretty much guaranteed not everybody has complete control of their semiconductor supply chain, and even if they do there's an incentive for all companies to cut costs where they can. A consumer buying a product doesn't make an informed decision about the type of serial interface in their devices, much less whether it's genuine or not. There's an expectation that the product will work and that falls on the manufacturer, who might not even be responsible either.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  It shares the critical element of diffuse responsibility. Everyone can half-reasonably shrug their shoulders and say, "Well it isn't MY fault". If a Sony product happens to have a fake FTDI chip in it, this is FTDI's way of incentivizing Sony (via angry customers) to manage their supply chain, because as you say there's an incentive even for Sony to cut costs where they can- perhaps by turning a blind eye when they get some suspicious batches of chips for a great price, and claiming ignorance later... Everyone, in demanding the lowest price no matter what (all the way up the supply chain) bears part of the blame. We are of course witnessing a visceral response on the part of HN voters reacting to my comment, who are exemplifying why this is a hard problem to tackle. It isn't MY responsibility!
  - bri3d 12y ago
    As a consumer I have no way to know if the FTDI in my device is real. It really isn't my fault. This is FTDI's way of incentivizing companies using consumers, like I said in my original comment, and it sucks.
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      As a consumer I had no way of knowing the motorcycle I bought was stolen. It came with the keys, the title, there was no evidence of thievery (most commonly broken parts around the ignition). The police said, "Wow we wouldn't have known this was stolen without running it in our database either". I didn't know. But it still gets repossessed, and I'm still out $1k. (True story, and my first brush with the laws around black markets)
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        These FTDI fakes aren't stolen, though. There is a massive difference between stolen, counterfeit, and clone. If the chips are only sold as "FTDI-compatible", then I would even say they should be completely legit, like Dalvik vs. Java.
      - vonmoltke 12y ago
        If the person from whom the motorcycle was stolen discovered one night that it was at your house and just took it back, they would be committing a crime. Even though the motorcycle was rightfully theirs, there is a procedure to go through to get it back. Simply showing up and taking it back is a form of vigilantism. What FTDI is doing is also a form of vigilantism.
        judk 12y ago
        This is not true. Breaking into your house etc is criminal, but taking back their own property is not.
      - lsaferite 12y ago
        Except in this analogy, someone sold you a Ducati with Pirelli tires that happened to be counterfeit. And suddenly Pirelli shows up and torches your bike because someone used a tire that had their logo. Edit: Apparently I don't proof-read
Dylan16807 12y ago
But a stolen good is entirely different from a lookalike good. These chips didn't fall off the back of a truck. They were in most cases legitimately manufactured and sold to an informal spec.
Silhouette 12y ago
The point of restoring stolen goods to their original owner is to undo the damage to that owner. It's not to punish someone who innocently and unknowingly came into possession of the goods at a later stage. The latter person losing out is necessary in that case only because justice can't be done entirely to both parties at the same time (unless the intermediary responsible for the theft is found and forced to compensate everyone who lost out). In this case, screwing the innocent purchaser of a chip that is a knock-off is entirely unwarranted. It's hard to see how it wouldn't be a breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in my country (England), which would seem to make impairing the operation of the component a criminal offence here. Edit 1: Clarify wording/citation. Edit 2: If I'm looking at the right company web site, these guys are actually headquartered in Scotland. I'm not sure whether the exact same law applies in their jurisdiction.
mikeash 12y ago
I'm curious, do you think this applies to you as well, or are you somehow confident that you own no counterfeit hardware?
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Of course it applies to me. I am not supremely confident I own no counterfeit hardware. Especially when it comes to some of the cheap cables and adapters I own.
deelowe 12y ago
You clearly don't know how the semiconducter supply chain works. All of this stuff is made in asia and changes hands 3 or 4 times before it makes it's way into a distribution channel. Unless you are buying straight from ftdi, there's a chance these can end up in your products. Same goes with most commodity ICs.

13 12y ago

No, that's not the case here. Fake FTDI chips are going to be used in absolutely everything, products from Alibaba to name brand professional stuff. It's pretty much guaranteed not everybody has complete control of their semiconductor supply chain, and even if they do there's an incentive for all companies to cut costs where they can. A consumer buying a product doesn't make an informed decision about the type of serial interface in their devices, much less whether it's genuine or not. There's an expectation that the product will work and that falls on the manufacturer, who might not even be responsible either.

sliverstorm 12y ago
It shares the critical element of diffuse responsibility. Everyone can half-reasonably shrug their shoulders and say, "Well it isn't MY fault". If a Sony product happens to have a fake FTDI chip in it, this is FTDI's way of incentivizing Sony (via angry customers) to manage their supply chain, because as you say there's an incentive even for Sony to cut costs where they can- perhaps by turning a blind eye when they get some suspicious batches of chips for a great price, and claiming ignorance later... Everyone, in demanding the lowest price no matter what (all the way up the supply chain) bears part of the blame. We are of course witnessing a visceral response on the part of HN voters reacting to my comment, who are exemplifying why this is a hard problem to tackle. It isn't MY responsibility!
- bri3d 12y ago
  As a consumer I have no way to know if the FTDI in my device is real. It really isn't my fault. This is FTDI's way of incentivizing companies using consumers, like I said in my original comment, and it sucks.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    As a consumer I had no way of knowing the motorcycle I bought was stolen. It came with the keys, the title, there was no evidence of thievery (most commonly broken parts around the ignition). The police said, "Wow we wouldn't have known this was stolen without running it in our database either". I didn't know. But it still gets repossessed, and I'm still out $1k. (True story, and my first brush with the laws around black markets)
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      These FTDI fakes aren't stolen, though. There is a massive difference between stolen, counterfeit, and clone. If the chips are only sold as "FTDI-compatible", then I would even say they should be completely legit, like Dalvik vs. Java.
    - vonmoltke 12y ago
      If the person from whom the motorcycle was stolen discovered one night that it was at your house and just took it back, they would be committing a crime. Even though the motorcycle was rightfully theirs, there is a procedure to go through to get it back. Simply showing up and taking it back is a form of vigilantism. What FTDI is doing is also a form of vigilantism.
      - judk 12y ago
        This is not true. Breaking into your house etc is criminal, but taking back their own property is not.
    - lsaferite 12y ago
      Except in this analogy, someone sold you a Ducati with Pirelli tires that happened to be counterfeit. And suddenly Pirelli shows up and torches your bike because someone used a tire that had their logo. Edit: Apparently I don't proof-read

Dylan16807 12y ago

But a stolen good is entirely different from a lookalike good. These chips didn't fall off the back of a truck. They were in most cases legitimately manufactured and sold to an informal spec.

Silhouette 12y ago

The point of restoring stolen goods to their original owner is to undo the damage to that owner. It's not to punish someone who innocently and unknowingly came into possession of the goods at a later stage. The latter person losing out is necessary in that case only because justice can't be done entirely to both parties at the same time (unless the intermediary responsible for the theft is found and forced to compensate everyone who lost out). In this case, screwing the innocent purchaser of a chip that is a knock-off is entirely unwarranted. It's hard to see how it wouldn't be a breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in my country (England), which would seem to make impairing the operation of the component a criminal offence here. Edit 1: Clarify wording/citation. Edit 2: If I'm looking at the right company web site, these guys are actually headquartered in Scotland. I'm not sure whether the exact same law applies in their jurisdiction.

mikeash 12y ago

I'm curious, do you think this applies to you as well, or are you somehow confident that you own no counterfeit hardware?

sliverstorm 12y ago
Of course it applies to me. I am not supremely confident I own no counterfeit hardware. Especially when it comes to some of the cheap cables and adapters I own.

deelowe 12y ago

You clearly don't know how the semiconducter supply chain works. All of this stuff is made in asia and changes hands 3 or 4 times before it makes it's way into a distribution channel. Unless you are buying straight from ftdi, there's a chance these can end up in your products. Same goes with most commodity ICs.