Comment by perihelions

perihelions Sep 5, 2023 parent

Thanks, but, that FCC document clearly says it's about a "voluntary labeling program", and, the title of this HN post has the word "regulation" and the text has language like "require" [0]. And the phrase "oppose[...] even voluntary ones", which clearly sounds like someone's proposing non-voluntary stuff.

I read your linked HN comment too, but: "legitimate interest in" [1] a thing and actual "authority" to do a thing are not the same thing.

I feel like I'm being bamboozled here. The fcc.gov "Notice", and this HN post, seem like they're talking about substantially different proposals.

[0] "I’ve advocated for the FCC to require device manufacturers to support their devices with security updates for a reasonable amount of time"

[1] "...we think that the FCC has a legitimate interest in just about any vulnerability on a wireless device"

whats_a_quasar Sep 5, 2023

Nathan's post and the proposed rulemaking are both quite explicit that the proposal under comment is a voluntary labeling scheme. Perhaps the intro could be better written to be clearer, but I don't really understand your complaint. There's no bamboozle.

From above:

"I’ve advocated for the FCC to require device manufacturers to support their devices with security updates for a reasonable amount of time [1]. I can't bring such a proposal to a vote since I’m not the chairman of the agency. But I was able to convince my colleagues to tentatively support something a little more moderate addressing this problem.

The FCC recently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [2] for a cybersecurity labeling program for connected devices. If they meet certain criteria for the security of their product, manufacturers can put an FCC cybersecurity label on it. I fought hard for one of these criteria to be the disclosure of how long the product will receive security updates. I hope that, besides arming consumers with better information, the commitments on this label (including the support period) will be legally enforceable in contract and tort lawsuits and under other laws. You can see my full statement here [3]."

SimingtonFCC Sep 5, 2023

Thanks! Sorry for any lack of clarity. My initial draft was way over the character limit and I had to cut a lot prior to posting. Thanks for highlighting the relevant language and clearing things up.

pierat Sep 5, 2023

Maybe, reach out to the FTC over the fraud that's being perpetuated with this cloud-locked (other peoples' servers) *rental* being sold as a *sale* ?

If these companies are selling defective goods and preventing individuals to fix it themselves (in other words, the selling company holds material control of the device), that's a *rental* .

Properly reclassifying consumer garbage with company-locked electronics as a rental would be the big kick-in-the-pants that nearly every company is playing now. And that includes the cellphone-on-wheels (Tesla), the stunts being played by most other car manufacturers ($$$ for heated seats, etc), Apple holding control over what approved software a general purpose computer can process, and loads more.

I don't think the FCC can require firmware updates other than in radio based units, to require regulatory requirements for specific frequencies (2.4GHz no channel 12/13 in USA, 10 minute wait on a part of 5.8GHz for ground radar). But the FTC could force it by clarifying cloud-crap is a rental, and not a sale.

This item has no comments currently.

Preferences

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

Navigation

Miscellaneous