Quality of life critical software should be ensured by FDA certification. Homebrew modifications of that software, even in the name of “freedom”, risks the patient’s life and health and should be illegal if uncertified.
To achieve that, the max acceleration must be quite low (software controlled), and the whole experience is sluggish, like trying to steer a car by pulling on rubber bands attached to the wheel.
From the moment I found a way to overcome this, I never went back. I know that I can hurt myself if I do something stupid, but I prefer this hypothetical risk instead of cursing 100 times a day because I cannot move how I want. It has been 10 years and I never got hurt.
I understand that such "high" risk device cannot be sold, but forbidding someone to change this is like inflicting a second handicap on him.
> Homebrew modifications of that software, even in the name of “freedom”, risks the patient’s life and health and should be illegal if uncertified.
Surely you must also support effective (ie harsh/deterrent) prosecution and punishment for these crimes as well, correct?
I think this is the key part of the comment - yes, uncertified changes by anyone could feasibly be illegal. The FDA or similar should probably do code reviews.
What if you fix a bug in your own pacemaker? Would it be ok to:
a) Fine you?
b) Jail you?
c) Force you to revert the change? (plausibly leading to death in an extreme case)
[edit: I do agree that there's a chance that making a 'fix' to your own pacemaker might also make it worse. In which case, who do we trust more? The person on the ground with a stake in the matter (however misinformed), or $government_official with no stake in the matter (however well informed).
I think it's tricky! ]
People have a right, albeit not enshrined in law, to do stupid things that might kill them - at least as long as they don't then ask someone else to save them.
Yes, bad software modifications are bad and should be punished wherever they arise.
Homebrew modifications make it way easier for bad stuff to happen, and make it harder to punish.
That almost never happens. Software sux.
> This is a huge straw man/whataboutism that contributes nothing to the discussion.
> bad software modifications... should be punished wherever they arise
In light of the real harm caused by this neverending policy failure, the Library of Congress is morally and ethically obligated to permit fair use exemption. Individuals and homebrew communities must be unshackled to protect patients from the real (not hypothetical!), documented, and widespread harm caused by corporate-sponsored attacks on US medical infrastructure.
No, that's not an exaggeration.
Given the current anti-patient landscape, the protections of open source far outweigh any risk.
In some (western) countries, your body is your personal private property, and you have the freedom and ultimate authority over how to use and abuse it, or anything on or in it. (you are still advised to treat your most precious property wisely, obviously)
In other (western) countries/subcommunities people feel that obligations to your community are stronger.
People from these different cultures can get into some pretty hefty discussions when it comes to things like abortion, drugs, euthansia, or -here- implants.
That is not obviously true.
I feel I belong to my family and my community.
True. But neither is the other position
If you want to risk your life you can do it but no one should be compelled to help you.
And surely they could hire experts to do the job.
2. It's not as if the people who depend on the medical devices have to take the word of the community of people who will mod the devices over the word of the FDA.