...because you agreed to the terms when operating the software.
If I were authorizing something like that (I'd rather quit my job, but if), I'd be terrified of the repurcussions – for one, what if the device was sold in a region that has consumer protections? The fact that they're casually planning and committing such a careless act speaks volumes to the weakness of consumer protections, I guess.
Is that still “malicious destruction of property”?
This is the device operating the way it was designed. It may be something that should be prevented by civil consumer protection law, but calling it criminal is just unfounded under the definition of what those words legally mean.
The purpose of a fuse is not to blow, but to only blow when dangerous amounts of current flow through the wire they are protecting.
eFuses are a hackish way that System on a Chip makers have created to try and permit patching flawed hardware with questionable firmware. Permanently breaking electrical contact of a circuit in a chip is definitely damaging that circuit.
The fact that the fuse has a function, means that it isn’t “destruction of property”. They added it for DRM, and there’s no evidence to show that it’s anything other than DRM. For it to be “destruction of property”, you’d need to prove that they didn’t do it for DRM, but because they wanted to hurt users. (whether or not it does hurt users is irrelevant for determining mens rea)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Nintendo; I’m just saying that this is not a criminal matter.
The purpose of these fuses is to blow and serve as write-once storage memory.
> eFuses are a hackish way that System on a Chip makers have created to try and permit patching flawed hardware with questionable firmware.
No, eFuses are literally the only mutable nonvolatile storage that can be implemented inside SoCs in modern silicon processes, because you can't put Flash/EEPROM in them for technical reasons. That is why they are universally used for irreversible configuration actions on every single modern high-performance SoC. You will only find Flash memory in small microcontrollers.
Fuses are simply electrical components. They have no more inherent purpose than a capacitor, resistor, or diode. These fuses are working just as intended, even though its in a use case that you're not familiar with.
1 - https://electrek.co/2021/08/12/tesla-starts-giving-back-supe... 2 - https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21127243/tesla-model-s-aut... 3 - https://www.tweaktown.com/news/36851/tesla-model-s-owner-fid...
Is it an acceptable practice to do this in fine print? I don't know. It's a bit dodgy I'll admit. But I have personally completely given up on the idea that just because I hand over money and receive a physical item I somehow "own" it in the sense that I can do what I want with it, at least if it contains software.
But the criminal angle is a big stretch. Nintendo is not breaking into devices to install updates and bricking them. And not liking something is very different, legally, than maliciousness. They're updating them when you click update, after being presented with legalese about it, and adding DRM which serves a function (whether you like the function or not).
Unless they have auto updates that you can't disable, they can just withhold access to online services until you give them the permission. You're free to refuse of course, and no "malicious destruction of property" happens without your consent.
>If I were authorizing something like that (I'd rather quit my job, but if), I'd be terrified of the repurcussions – for one
IANAL but the chances of you getting civil/criminal penalties is slim to none.
If some large organization wants to monitor what you're doing by installing malware, they need to be able get the older OS installed. Assuming you're a sufficiently value target (human rights activists, etc), it can be worth them spying on you to get your device passcode, and then downgrading and installing malware. If it's not across a major version I suspect that the victim would not know.
Part of the attack model the companies like Apple and Google have to consider is direct physical access to the device. Neither company considers it reasonable to say "once someone has physical access to your device it is game over".
I mean, if they have your device passcode, they already have pretty broad access to your device already.
https://www.upcounsel.com/unfair-contract-terms-regulations
https://www.ttclub.com/news-and-resources/news/tt-talk/2016/....