Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us To Greater Harm

Posted by Soulskill on from the defective-by-design dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Cory Doctorow has an article in Wired explaining why crafting laws to restrict software is going to hurt us in the long run. The reason? Because we're on an irreversible trajectory toward integrating technology with our cars and houses, bodies and brains. If we don't control the software, then at some point, we won't control parts of our homes and our selves. Doctorow writes, "Any law or regulation that undermines computers' utility or security also ripples through all the systems that have been colonized by the general-purpose computer. And therein lies the potential for untold trouble and mischief.

Code always has flaws, and those flaws are easy for bad guys to find. But if your computer has deliberately been designed with a blind spot, the bad guys will use it to evade detection by you and your antivirus software. That's why a 3-D printer with anti-gun-printing code isn't a 3-D printer that won't print guns—the bad guys will quickly find a way around that. It's a 3-D printer that is vulnerable to hacking by malware creeps who can use your printer's 'security' against you: from bricking your printer to screwing up your prints to introducing subtle structural flaws to simply hijacking the operating system and using it to stage attacks on your whole network."

6 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Start with copyright by sinij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Start with copyright and patents - these are by far most harmful regulatory areas that hold back our progress.

    Still, not all regulation is bad. We could use more rules safeguarding our privacy. Presently, it is 'loot and pillage' with every Dick, Tom, and Harry from the Silicon Valley trying to insert themselves in the middle and start tracking you.

  2. That's pretty much the idea by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're not supposed to control your appliance! If you would, you could not only fix them instead of replacing them, you could find new applications for them instead of buying another, specialized, one. And the maker could not at will end its life so you'd be buying the next one, bigger and better than your old 6 month old ancient garbage.

    It's not a bug. It's a feature.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Bill of Rights is a list of things the federal government isn't allowed to do. It doesn't put any limitations on you, me or Dice. You and I can do bad things, but we can't violate the Bill of Rights because the B of R is a set of restrictions on the feds.

    Therefore, ONLY big government can violate your Constitutional rights. Businesses can make you mad, they can provide'poor customer service, but only government can violate your Constitutional rights. The reason for this? Because only government can send men with guns to enforce their will upon. Comcast you can simply cancel, and get Dish or Verizon instead.

    1. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      The East India Company was founded in 1600. They ruled an entire subcontinent. They raised armies and waged war in their own name. The authors of the bill of rights knew about the power of corporations.

    2. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by jythie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes and no. The East India Company was a very real thing of course, but it was run by people like them to the detriment of 'not people'. Remember that most of the 'founding fathers' came from the american ruling class and wished more power. While they knew 'oppression', they knew it in the same way middle management knows it, unhappy there are people above them but still comfortably in better shape than. So when they pictured things like the East India Corp, it was a model of what people like them could do with their freedom, not something they had to fear being used against them. At most it was competition, something on their level that they would need to counter.

  4. Racket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's right.

    If we don't control the software, then at some point, we won't control parts of our homes and our selves.

    "Dear Customer:

    We are now charging a small monthly fee for the use of your Home Software. It will be due in 30 days otherwise your heat and hot water will be turned to default levels and your air conditioning will no longer function.

    Thank you.

    Sincerely,

    Your Home Automation company."

    And you can bet your ass that they'll have lobbied Congress to make that completely legal.