Comment by EvanAnderson | Hacker News Reader

Comment by EvanAnderson | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I should be the one to decide when my computer stops being able to do something it could already do. The default should be that I do nothing and my computer continues to be able to do what it already did.

It's wrong every time I have to do something to allow my computer to continue doing something it already did. This is why I have to be exceedingly careful not to install updates on those dwindling platforms where I still have that control. I have no idea what features are going to be removed, and usually have no way to get them back. (Hello e-fuses in the Nintendo Switch, or Apple no longer signing old iOS releases to prevent downgrading.)

We should not normalize the idea that third-parties can take away the capabilities of devices we own.

Edit: I would go so far as to say that it should be illegal for a device manufacturer to prevent you from reinstalling any old firmware onto a device you own. (Yes, yes-- I know that we're getting into the whole "But that old device firmware has security bugs! Think of the Internet!" discussion. Liability, both for device manufacturers and for device owners, is a conversation we need to have too.)

I think the problem is when someone isn't able to decide what's best for their computer - and then decides to blame the vendor.

The vendor has already distributed the software with the QA done as thoroughly as possible/ practical, issued a TOS denying a warranty or any sort of protection from failure - that we all agreed to - and yet the litigation is inevitable if something happens to the end-user on account of a vulnerability in the software.

Its not their computer, but in our litigation-happy cultural climate, its their responsibility. No one is preventing us from doing what we want with our computers with this flash issue - just reducing liability.

This exactly and having a discussion as a society and the legal changes necessary will be a much harder solution that literally nobody except relatively diehard techies care about.

I care about true device ownership but there are like literally only probably what? 1000's 10's of thousands globally even a million or two globally of us isn't much compared to billions using the devices.

That's what gives me the crushing sadness. It's never going to rise to the level that individual consumers will care.

Only the "diehard techies" will care. Based on how many of my technical friends have knuckled-under and normalized these kinds of affronts to freedom apparently there are fewer "diehard techies" than I thought, too.

I wish that I could just "turn off" my love for computing and computers. Instead, I get to see my hobby and vocation die a long, painful death.

>It's never going to rise to the level that individual consumers will care.

Could it be possible that it's actually less of an issue than it seems to you?

>Only the "diehard techies" will care.

I'm a diehard techie and I do not care.

Let's have a conversation about "cyber" product liability as society, then, instead of leaving it up to the hardware manufacturers and software companies to decide.

Individuals should bear some of the liability for how their devices are used. If my device that I've opted to take off the vendor-prescribed updated train causes a public menace that should be my liability.

Automobiles are the model here. As an owner I am liable for any damage I cause by my operation of the automobile. However if there is a design defect (e.g. Toyota sticking accelerator, etc.) that I reasonably was unaware of, then the manufacturer has liability. But if I continue to drive my Toyota, knowing of the problem and ignoring the manufacturers recalls, then liability comes back to me.

Devil's advocate- as long as that feature is there Microsoft has an obligation to support it. The feature has fallen out of use. Why should Microsoft be forced to support this forever?

You're free to stop updating Windows right?

What does "support" mean? Let the feature continue working has it has. Sure. Yeah.

You shipped the code. It exists forever. You don't get to take it away later because it's not in your business interests.

Fix bugs? I'll pay for that if I want that. Software is a service. They shouldn't be obligated to fix bugs for free (unless they agreed to that in a contract).

With Windows 10 I'm not free to stop updating Windows if I want a computer connected to the Internet. Microsoft does dirty tricks to make if very difficult for me from completely stopping the update treadmill. They've shown that it's an arms race, too. I can't possibly keep up with that opponent.

Maye there's a fitness for service argument that could be made and that the software is dangerous in its current state. Disabling it is one way to make it safe and the license spells out what their obligation is to you when they do so.

Most EULAs disclaim all fitness for purpose, though. They restrict the rights of the end user (no reverse engineering, no benchmarking, etc) and disclaim away any and all liability from the developer (no warranty, not fit for any purpose, etc).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com