"We", the totally homogeneous group of software professionals could make this stop. "We" don't.
If Technical folk are not on the Boards or have controlling share in an org, or don't know how to get into such positions then they have very little to no say in how anything works.
There are countless examples were technical people object and get replaced, sidelined or fired, cuz they are totally unprepared in how to win such age old political and financial fights. If Oppenheimer, Engelbart and the Google brainiacs who protested recently got pushed aside, then its beyond obvious how the story will end for anyone else.
The lesson from history for anyone serious about this stuff is - develop business+finance acumen, or develop alliances with business+finance power.
When it comes to something like a "remote kill switch" for software, it's hard to imagine any alternate beneficial use. But generally I assign the blame to the users of software who put it to a malicious use, not to authors.
They didn't tell her the planes were elongated spherical and filled with powerful explosives and the runways weren't flat - at least not before the plane landed on them.
The obvious alternate beneficial use is the ability to immediately disable the hardware in case a serious safety issue (the kind that triggers product recall) is discovered.
This is one of the best parts: many software people have gotten in through circuitous routes, have no formal training, and have done great things despite that.
On the other hand, because of that, we don't have any consensus and ability to shun or disposess companies that act unethically.
Quite frankly, I don't think any board of ethics would step in here. I don't see anything in the IEEE code of ethics that would be clear here. I don't think that professional licensing or better professional organizations are the way to stop this behavior.
And making a Professional Engineer sign on to the software release before the release would be a good way to prevent shit like this.
It wasn't just a faceless and nameless software engineer it was a real human being with a name.
Until it is mandated that public infrastructure is developed in the open so we know precisely who attempts to add features to render a product defective by design we will not be able to fix this.
If copyright is the root of the problem, it may be time to remove that protection; or at least revert it so it is more in-line with patent law expiration.
No more author's life + 75. Lets try 15-20 once again, and no derivative protection, unless significantly different, receive protection.
Software should require disclosure of details of what is protected (e.g. the source) so it can be public used post expiry - just as patents give you a monopoly only what is disclosed in the patent.
I'd add that functionally dependent software that is used for the items primary purpose, or its features, should also receive little to no protection, and be disclosed up-front.
You own the things that you buy.
Most things have the same (too long for anything) life + 70.
There is a bad edit in my comment. One item was supposed to go in a second para about the same regarding patents...
One typical effect of increasing any kind of regulation is that large incumbents tend to benefit disproportionately compared to small operators and newcomers, for several reasons: (1) larger operations can amortise compliance costs more easily; (2) larger operations legitimately contain people with useful expertise in helping government decide the shape of the regulations (and will propose kinds of regulation that correspond as far as possible to their own existing practices, and to practices that competitors would find costly to implement); (3) larger operations have the wherewithal to lobby for regulations that are to their benefit and to competitors' detriment, irrespective of how good those regulations are for other stakeholders. (2) and (3) together lead towards regulatory capture, at which point the regulations are almost purely a drain on all other participants with no upside.
If that's regulation, yes please.
It is, and as much as we all want to pretend this is always about rent seeking.
There can be other reasons.
Some systems are bought in manners that include service contracts and outs liability on manufacturers. In such scenarios one man's kill switch could be a safety feature.
You don't want unauthorized personel messing about a medical x-ray device. Because (a) you want it to work, (b) there might be 10k+ volts sitting in giant capacitors.
I'm guessing it's similar with airplanes.
---
In complex enterprise systems, right to repair might not always be simple.
But if it comes to your home appliances, a tractor, car, etc. I'd be a lot less worried.
John Deere is proof that the manufacturer alone can't be trusted because they can't provide timely service in a time-critical industry.
What we want is results. Whatever mechanism is most efficient at producing those results should be used.
> Copyright is the root of the problem.
If you sell me a device that relies on copyrighted software for operation then you must also grant me a limited non-transferable license tied to that specific device to modify that software however I please. Perhaps DMCAs anti tampering provisions are really the issue here.
I think so, yeah. But IMO even copyright as a whole brings more problems than it solves nowadays.