Hacker News Reader

Comment by narrator | Hacker News Reader

TVs and other gadgets that have no microphones or video cameras embedded in them should have a certification like "organic". "NoSpy Certified" or a similar trademark would be appropriate right next to the UL and CE marks.

View on HN

To get an equivalent to all those meaningless "BIO" certificates?

You know that every loudspeaker can be used as a microphone, do you?

You know that even stuff without radio can be converted to send files wireless (e.g. CPU as radio, already published a while ago by someone)?

Would "NoSpy Certified" also cover the NSA et al?

It would mean that only your local spy agency has access!

Well, 'organic' as a certification doesn't really mean anything. And UL was kind of a joke from having dealt with them personally.

This is absolutely untrue. "Organic" is a regulated term by the USDA, requiring verification from an accredited certifying agency.

USDA organic allows non organic pesticides and herbicides. It's a joke of a standard.

Really? Growing up on a farm, and having friends/acquaintances who were either organic or interested in going organic, I don't recall that pesticides and herbicides were allowed. The so-called "organic pesticides" and "organic herbicides" I've seen are mostly just all natural snake oil...

Here's the list of non-organic substances allowed by USDA [1] and hopefully it means more to you than it does to me.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=06b088e611c...

there are some organic & inorganic ingredient allowed in organic farming. Depending upon below criteria 1) allowed (2) Banned (3) Restricted. Before questioning on organic everyone must understand concepts & standards of organic. You could email me @ vivekon.export@gmail.com or +91 8550994623 Regards, Sagar

> And UL was kind of a joke from having dealt with them personally.

UL may be a 'joke', but it does keep a lot of sketchy electronics out of the market (at least in the US). In my personal experience dealing with them, bad hardware design is more to blame for a bad experience with UL than the UL process itself (which, is brutally long, but just might be for a reason..)

We just had a situation where they insisted on a design that they admitted was less safe in context but fit their standards better.

That's exactly what I would expect from a standards-based certification. But it's also why it's useful - "it is safer" is much easier to fudge (see also: Boeing) than "it is in compliance with this 40-item check list". Either way, it sets the baseline, so there's a net benefit so long as most products would be below that baseline without market pressure to certify.

Most standards have an escape hatch, like PCI's compensating controls. And we weren't blowing smoke, later one of our engineers broke his arm because of the changes on design they wanted.

it is wrong view

Reply on news.ycombinator.com