Comment by wvenable

4 years ago

> under what premise is it desirable that the government should mandate how companies design and sell products?

The premise that benefits individuals and society.

The government already mandates how companies design and sell products. This isn't a radical concept. The reason cars get safer and cleaner every year is due to government regulation. The reason that instant coffee cannot be more than 50% bugs and twigs is government regulation.

> If people don’t want to pay for gear that behaves in that way, they’re free to not buy it.

Or we could just regulate it and then this consumer-hostile issue wouldn't exist.

> Or we could just regulate it and then this consumer-hostile issue wouldn't exist.

But I specifically want a device that only runs code from another company. Why should the government say “only enterprises can establish this absolute security trust relationship with their hardware vendor”?

  • If changing this permission requires root access then malware can only access it after they have obtained root access to your machine basically after you have already lost.

    It this seems too insecure one could gate such a feature behind a physical switch on the device.

    If this is indeed still not secure enough one could require a physical switch AND a password or token ensuring that the person physically holding the device can still be restricted by the owner in case the two aren't one in the same while providing all owners absolute privilege on their own hardware.

Cars and coffee are regulated in ways that improve health and safety. What is the health and safety impact of not being able to run homebrew on my Nintendo Wii?

  • What about environmental and first-sale issues? I have a piece of hardware tied to a company that went out business and it no longer functions. So I'm both deprived of my device and it's now e-waste.

    Apple preventing repairs? John Deere preventing repairs? These have real-world impacts.