- 0 Posts
- 16 Comments
Being in jail because you fixed an air filter is a much stronger message people could rail against.
I see that its not feasible for the nonprofit to invite breaking the law, but the law seems ill defined in this case, and perhaps a lawsuit that goes to the top could change things. I think lawmakers dont actually care about fixable devices, and proving they can be fixed doesnt change this. Saving someone from prison by way of closing a loophole(DRM to prevent repairs, replacement parts) is something much more actionable for polititians I think.
If I had the kind of money that they seem to have I would try this instead, is all I was trying to say.
But unlike Kociemba, he wasn’t about to share the fix. Though he was able to fix the problem, he doesn’t feel safe weathering the potential legal ramifications that he might face if he released the solution publicly. “I proved that I can do it,” he says. “And that was it.” Still, Fulu awarded him the bounty. O’Reilly says the goal of the project is less about getting actual fixes out in the world, and more about calling attention to the lengths companies are allowed to go to wrest control from their users under the auspices of Section 1201.
And thats where they lost me. The project isnt about actually fixing things? Its just to show the lawmakers that made fixing stuff illegal that stuff can still technically be fixed? Great…?
Fixing something that was obviously hostile in design, and then getting sued for fixing is a much stronger political signal than saying “it can be fixed :)” in a press release! People even get awarded a big chunk of money for it! The foundation seems to have a lot of money, they granted the first bounty to 2 people simultaneously, and they match all bounties up to 10000$ so they could support lawsuits that challenge stuff like this, but instead award money to secret solutions that help nobody.
This is frustrating to read, so close to challenging big tech without actually doing anything!
this is peak schizoposting. I love schizoposts, but it just doesnt belong in this community.
The article is from a security researcher involved in the development of post-quantum encryption. Hes known for fighting against various agencies trying to weaken encryption for their questionable benefit. Hes been very successful but a one-man-show only goes so far. Please, if you read this: write those emails to the mailing list and tell others whats going on!
This (sadly) has implications across the whole world, but right now its very easy to stop.
And please, if you do write the email, please dont just copy paste the template in the article, it seems the comitee wants to ignore all the ones with the same wording because of “spam”
Sounds very interesting. Im not sure how open it will actually be, if they just mean its using RISC-V’s open design and its just lost in translation or if they are actually trying to make an open hardware ecosystem.
edit: I read a bit more, it seems to be a apache-like licensed software only processor that one needs to implement first, so basically something inbetween pre RISC-V and an actual chip. Still cool, but I was hoping it was a finished chip.
I think the company perspective “breaking a security chip to allow installation of other airfilters being in violation of copyright” is flimsy at best. No intellectual property is being protected with it, thats why I think putting the fix online and fighting the potential lawsuit is a better strategy. But I see why they wouldnt do that.