Internet of criminal things

Posted Sep 28, 2015 20:15 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313)
In reply to: Internet of criminal things by bronson
Parent article: The Internet of criminal things

because "defeat device" is scare words as it's being used in the media, and getting people into the mindset that software is a "defeat device" makes them think that it's a great idea to ban software modifications to eliminate the possibility that people can install such "defeat devices" in things.

Not just cars, but the FCC is currently accepting comments on proposing requiring that access point manufacturers be required to demonstrate how they will prevent people who buy the devices from installing DD-WRT or OpenWRT on the devices based on the fact that such open software is a "defeat device"

we lost the definition of "hacker", don't let if statements (and similar code) start being talked about as if it was a hardware device installed in something that can just be locked out.

Internet of criminal things

Posted Sep 28, 2015 20:46 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (1 responses)

I totally agree with where you're coming from.

However, "defeat device" is a term coined in the 70s (if not before) when the government was trying to outlaw physical devices designed to defeat emissions testing. Law (as it does) carried that terminology forward into the era of the engine computer: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/86.1809-10

So, even if you find it to be scare words, that's not the way it was originally intended. I think it can be forgiven in this case.

Just curious, can you suggest a similarly unambiguous term that can be codified into law? Remember, the term needs to cover both software and hardware.

Internet of criminal things

Posted Sep 28, 2015 21:41 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

I agree that "defeat device" is the current legal term, and I think it's appropriate for a hardware device, even if it's a computer (say something that you plugin between the ECU and the wiring harness to change the signals)

But I've seen people elsewhere start getting up in arms about the conspiracy because this device has been installed in all these cars for years and nobody has spotted it.

When you point out that it's not a physical device, it's just software in the system, the expectations change. There's still plenty of silly, over-the-top reactions even then.

I don't know a good phrase to try and replace it as a "term of art" in legal matters though :-(