> how do you define what an acceptable level of being locked down is?
I do not want to define any such level. But I do want the manufacturer to bear the full responsibility if the device can be hacked remotely and used beyond its stated area of operation. The manufacturer should not be able to waive that responsibility using a trick like of calling a device a general purpose computer that happened to be able to turn life on/off if such devices is marketed as a specialized device.
> (and are you really sure there isn't such a statement in the product documentation now?)
Not in a wireless light switches that are sold here in Norway.
> the California Law that requires that all buildings that contain potential Cancer causing chemicals to have a sign on the doors stating
Those laws are useless indeed. What may work is a law that states that if a building uses materials that have not been on the marked for, say, 50 years, then the builder should be responsible for any health-related problems that they may have caused.