Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnarbarian | Hacker News Reader

I would love to see a broad effort to certify, promote, and support open source privacy respecting devices from smart watches like pinetime, open laptops and phones, routers, even CPAP devices.

it's incredibly important for us to have maintainable open alternatives to the proprietary hellscape I see even when trying to purchase the most mundane devices.

some markets lacking open alternatives now:

security cameras

smart speakers

CPAPs

working OSS phones

wireless routers (shipped with open firmware)

automotive diagnostic/programming software

smart TVs

smart scales

air tags

smart thermostats

personal weather stations

View on HN

Here are some ways you could rank devices:

Open API with documentation?

Open Source Firmware that can be deployed and updated by the user.

Open Source hardware specification (think RISC V)

Does this device produce data in an open format or standard?

Does the device send data to the manufacturer or third parties?

Does this device depend on cloud infrastructure the end user cannot control or replace with their own?

Does this device require you to install a mobile app to configure or manage it?

Can the device be repaired or upgraded?

What is the typical support lifetime by the manufacturer for software updates?

What is the MTBF?

Does the device have a secure supply chain?

Are cad files available to support modding and repair?

> CPAPs

> automotive diagnostic/programming software

The regulatory evidence you need to submit, the standards you need to comply with and the quality control you need throughout the whole manufacturing process makes it near impossible to deliver community driven open-source medical devices unless it's a 'wellness' (not medical device) or maybe class I medical device.

You could argue that Manufacturers could design open hardware and let people modify code at will on their custom CPAP but it would be very difficult to navigate legal liability. If someone modifies their custom CPAP and makes a firmware change that drastically increases pressure and a patient suffers barotrauma who is liable?

The same can be said for safety critical firmware in automotive (excluding infotainment etc.). Diagnostics/Logging sure have at it, but actual firmware changes I would prefer that we let manufacturers do that. A 4 tonne vehicle at 100 Km/h can hurt a lot more people than just a tinkering driver.

Have taken a look at Mozilla's Privacy Not Included project? https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com