Software that supports your body should always respect your freedom
Software that supports your body should always respect your freedom
Software that controls your body should always respect your freedom. This article is a recap of scandals of medical devices, like hearing aids, insulin pumps, bionic eyes, and pacemakers, and what we can learn from them. It's astonishing: you wouldn't expect these devices to be run by software in such a way that they can leave you completely helpless.
It should also respect your PRIVACY! There are numerous articles about CPAP machines transmitting your data to not only your doctor but also your insurance company, WITHOUT your consent. Possibly your employer as well. If your insurance company decides you're "not complying" and using your CPAP machine enough, they'll take it away from you. Your employer could fire you.
Having a sleep apnea diagnosis can also limit you from certain jobs, and can make it harder to get life insurance. In some ways it feels like you're not a free man anymore.
37Why are they even connected to the internet?
13The same question applies to cars, refrigerators, AC, thermostats, TV (aside from multimedia streams), washing machines, sex toys, regular toys, house locks, fan controllers, tooth brushes, toasters, microwaves, water heaters, stoves, ovens, trimmers, shavers, watches, ...
1Providing information for your care providers to act on it. At least that's why I would WANT to have it. Is it being effectivly used like that though? I have no idea.
1
Privacy is a natural consequence of freedom that FSF is talking about. Their stance is that any computing device under your ownership should do everything you want it to, and only what you want it to.
3
I can't with this article... there's a very legitimate argument to be made here, but instead they are whining that stuff stopped working after an iOS update. If you're running something life-critical you do not install every single update the moment it comes out.
4I couldn't disagree more with you. If you are running something REAL life critical the moment there is a patch you install it and deploy as fast as possible. And if it contains any severe patch it is even the vendor who recalls all the equipment with service bulletin and advisory letters.
With life critical you don't wait the bug to appear because It maybe too late to avoid deadly consequences.
18No. If you're working with life-critical systems, you only apply patches that are relevant to you. For example, an implantable insulin pump with Bluetooth capability. If there's a patch that changes the Bluetooth functionality, but you don't use that functionality, there's no point in applying the patch.
10Then we disagree. Think about it, you're patching the OS so what you now have is an untested configuration, and you've replaced a working system to get there, on the theory that you might be preventing an unknown bug in the future.
In one instance the vendor even explicitly recommends disabling OS updates until they have tested them.
3
There's a reason why Google and Apple let developers test out pre-release versions of their OSes months before the release. Companies which don't test their apps out to prepare for new versions are at fault, nothing else.
6I agree wholeheartedly, alas we live in an imperfect world. It sounds like you've waited for an update or two that took longer than expected.
I'm not arguing that the source code shouldn't be made public. If someone posses the right skills they should definitely be able to take full control over the devices they depend on to keep them alive. It's a invasive feeling knowing you depend on a gizmo to not die.
The author of this article is glossing over a lot of steps by implying that open sourcing the apps and firmware is a fix for delays in app store approval or other common problems that are inherent in the software/hardware ecosystem. It not really a flawed argument, it's just not what I would've lead with.
1