"Tread," a $3000 "smart" treadmill from @OnePeloton, is a deathtrap. 125,000 Treads have been recalled after the devices injured 72 people and killed a child.
Say what you will about Peloton's safety engineering, but never fault the evil genius of its strategists. The company responded to the news by bricking the Treads in the field and demanding $40/month "subscriptions" from owners to continue using them.
The pretense here is that the subscription comes with safety software that means that you treadmill will not maim you or murder your children.
This raises an obvious question: why not just put that software into all the existing Tread devices for free?
3/
But the answer is obvious. Because a free software update will cost the company money, and charging $40/month will make the company money - $480/year/customer, free net revenue for software that they've already written.
4/
You might as well ask, "Why don't ransomware gangs just tell pipeline owners about the defects in their software for free, rather than demanding millions of dollars?"
I mean, ransomware gangs have bills to pay, and so does Peloton. No one will write ransomware for free.
5/
This is the predictable failure-mode of designing devices that can be updated without their owners' permission or consent.
It's not even the first time Peloton has done this - in 2020, they bought their competitor Flywheel and bricked all its bikes.
The whole scam is only possible because Peloton - like most other "smart device" companies - gets to abuse copyright, patent, and cybersecurity law to ban third parties from making alternative software for its devices.
7/
Without laws like Section 1201 of the DMCA and the CFAA, a small group of coders could hack up their own Tread firmware, one that re-enabled the standalone mode, or offered a cheaper (or better) (or both) subscription service.
8/
Without #AdversarialInteroperability (AKA #CompetitiveCompatibility/#ComCom), Peleton's dead hand lays on your property forever, long after you've paid, and if you have demonstrate disloyalty to its shareholders, that hand punches you in the face.
Devices that answer to their manufacturers, not their users enable a toxic new usury, with riskier loans made to precarious people, with the threat of "digital repossession" to ensure a steady flow of payments that are securitized as bonds.
Peloton is in the usury business, lobbying Iowa's legislature to maintain the "rent-a-bank" system preferred by loansharks who offer Peloton financing at "0% down, 0% APR, 0% fees" but reserve the right to charge THIRTY PERCENT APR in the fine-print.
This is dystopian on its face. My novella UNAUTHORIZED BREAD is a good place to start if you want to see where the #InternetOfShit leads us to in terms of class war and exploitation.
ETA - If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Before covid, "remote proctoring" tools were a niche product, invasive tools that spied on students who needed to take high-stakes tests but couldn't get to campus or a satellite test-taking room. But the lockdown meant that *all* students found themselves in this position.
1/
(If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:)
This could have prompted educators to reconsider the use of high-stakes tests. After all, high-stakes testing has well-understood limitations in pedagogy, and organizes education around a highly artificial ritual completely unlike the rest of scholarly *and* industrial life.
3/
I've been paying close attention to @RepThomasMassie during the #ACCESSAct markup and I can't figure out his point. He correctly observes that proprietary standards are anticompetitive, but opposes the gold standard for open standards, namely, an IPR policy requiring licensing
@RepThomasMassie has described himself as a software developer, but it really feels like he is way, way out of his depth on standardization. Has he ever participated in an SDO. Not being able to distinguish between "interop" and "common vuln" is a pretty tyro error.
It's stuff like this that makes people assume that lawmakers are incapable of understanding - and thus regulating - technology. @RepThomasMassie really needs to get up to speed on how standards work.
In the #ACCESSAct hearing, @RepThomasMassie called the shared vulnerabilities in large-scale hacks as stemming from "interoperability." That's factually wrong. They have "shared dependencies" (use the same code/modules). This isn't the same thing as "interoperability."
Then @RepThomasMassie correctly warned that when firms get to define standards to their proprietary advantage, it produces monopoly power. However, #ACCESSAct provides for OPEN standards, developed independently of large firms.
The problem of proprietary advantage through capture of standards is well-understood and the #ACCESSAct takes account of it.