[flagged]
There's no sane world where it is defensible to remotely brick a device because it can't communicate with a telemetry server.
Just today: Setting up an old smartphone: "Google assistant cannot work on this device." The only choice was "back". Had to search on the internet the solution: do not connect to wi-fi.
If you want to block a device from accessing your servers because it's behaving in an odd way, such as this one that was contacting the update server but not the telemetry server, that's not entirely unreasonable. Sending it a command to modify its software to stop it from operating entirely is outrageous.
Why would a business have the power to decide what should and what shouldn't be homogeneous about the property of others? A transaction took place, property has legally changed hands and the former owner is exerting control over property that isn't theirs any more.
How about if the builder of your house comes into your home via an access route unknown to you, and starts rearranging where things are placed, or where you and your wife are placed, etc. in order to maintain homogeneous layout?
And if you complain he kicks you and your wife out of the house you bought. And if you dare to close off the backdoor he sends you to jail.
I've seen this movie. Only, the twist was that the home was built 100+ years ago and the builder long since dead. The family living in the home currently had to resort to an exorcist.
Edit to say that the sarcasm is direct rebuttal with the preposterous nature of the hypothetical.
One thing that is odd - if he blocked it calling home, it doesn't make sense that the kill code was issued remotely. It makes more sense that there is a line of code internally that kills the machine when it can't call home (which would be far less malicious).
Would it be? Whether the line of code is on the server or the device, what's the difference?
(CFAA charges)
It's funny you think a vacuum automatically bricking itself if you try to prevent its connection to the mothership is at all equivalent to someone choosing to give someone silverware.
How has making up things that other people haven't said been working out for you?
How's that backpedaling working out for you?
The contrast is that the vacuum isn't a sentient being, and so from there, you don't see the device reaching out, vs being told what to do, as being any different. I'm not a judge in overseeing a court case in your jurisdiction though, so no matter how much of a distinction I personally may think there is, is irrelevant.
Also doesn't Apple, Google, & other remove features from people's smartphones after release all the time in the EU?
Google and Apple can change the future set but they do not brick the device which was discussed and it works as advertised at the moment of purchase.
“The notion of goods with digital elements should refer to goods that incorporate or are inter-connected with digital content or a digital service in such a way that the absence of that digital content or digital service would prevent the goods from performing their functions.” — Recital 14, Directive (EU) 2019/771.