I posted "Mail-Followup-To: [email protected]" in the
headers of my post to this list. Please choose a mail client that respects
this header and do not send me copies of your mailing list followups. I
will pick up any replies you post to the list on the list.
Aaron E-J wrote:
I guess where I was going with my line of reasoning is not to limit
information on how to modify a device but actually do the opposite –
make modification be easy and safe.
You can't make a device safe for others to fully own. Safety fears are no
justification for unmodifiable devices, DRM, half-measures like open
source, or any other restrictions that stand in the way of owners making
their device work as they wish it to work. The owner determines how safe
their device is, this is a part of the freedom of owning any device. It
should suffice to warn the user in the documentation that this device is
capable of killing someone and the included software is set up so as not to
be lethal. Furthermore this should not be viewed as more risky than what
these device owners face now because the extant proprietary software has
already been demonstrated to be unsafe despite current unjustifiable
restrictions on ownership, modification, and use.
To use the car analogy, you need to have a driver's license in order to
drive and in order to do that, you need to know /how/ to drive.
That doesn't follow. One doesn't need a driver's license to modify a car.
If people who get medical devices are also trained in how the device
works, this would have the potential to save lives, regardless of
whether the user has the desire to modify it.
I have no objection to offering training to anyone (such training is merely
educational and a money-making opportunity for the trainers) but no
training should be required. We have long established this as acceptable
with cars which are objectively far more dangerous than devices that are
capable of injuring or killing the wearer.
