Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Sure - although I'll point out that technically the CFAA already covers this, it's just never applied in this manner (caveat - the CFAA can cover basically anything given the vague wording... so the value of it is up for debate)

Basically - I want a simple contract that ensures that the device I've bought will continue working as expected (assuming no use of remote/internet connected features) and that the manufacturer is unable to enter my property and change how it functions after sale.

I don't find that particularly unusual. I think the unusual part is rather than manufacturers have this new ability at all. For the majority of our legal history it was either prohibitively expensive or downright impossible for a manufacturer to embed a device that only obeys the manufacturer into consumer products.

Now it's both possible and cheap, and I'd like to see some regulation regarding my rights to purchase a tool.

A small number of places are paying at least a little attention and beginning to ban the most egregious cases of this (ex: NJ considering banning car subscriptions with a specific call out to the behavior of BMW around seat heaters).

But this is going to become a tidal wave of consumer abuse in the very near future - I can fucking guarantee it.

Why would anyone ever sell you a product when they can rent it to you and let their "little green man" be the property manager for free? They won't - not unless they're forced to.

And while I think renting can be a useful way to acquire a product - I sure as hell think it shouldn't be the only one.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: