Having the method exist is reasonable - you want to have as many fallbacks as possible to avoid bricking the device if you manage to break the main update flow.

Applying updates without user consent is the evil part.

Agreed the mechanism is just practical and robust engineering.

The only problem is the closed source drivers that could use it at any time.

Unless they got specific consent that sounds like unauthorised access and unauthorised alteration of a computer system (which I gather to be judged criminal in UK & USA at least).

> unauthorised access and unauthorised alteration of a computer system (which I gather to be judged criminal in UK & USA at least).

I doubt it would ever be prosecuted. It is important to remember that the law doesn’t mean what you think it means, it means what the average prosecutor and/or judge thinks it means. Those laws were invented for use against scary “hackers”, not printer manufacturers updating their own products

Yes, it's amazing how we have given corporations all the powers and none of the responsibilities of individuals over the years.

I would call it that, but no one in the government will. Printer manufacturers lawyers will just equate it with the same automatic updates that the printer will do by itself if it could. And they will have a dozen words buried somewhere in the middle of a bible sized tos that you "agreed to".

I’m sure we all consented when we clicked through the driver installation screens…

Crimes in the US are only for individuals (and even then only for poors). If you are a registered corporation you may defraud, steal, or manslaughter without consequence.

They do get explicit consent. That's what the EULA is.