Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If someone else can remotely disable a device that you own, you don't really own it. This kind of thing is why we need full control of our devices as device owners.


I’m not disagreeing with this, but early (like very early 1900’s) Ford vehicles had a little brass plaque with the serial number and some wording that if you misused the vehicle Ford could force you to forfeit it back to them. This concept is as old as the horseless carriage itself.


AT&T actually owned all the telephones on their network (which was effectively all the telephones in the United States). If you wanted to use a telephone that wasn't made by an AT&T subsidiary, you had to transfer ownership of that phone to AT&T before they would allow it on their network. A significant legal precedent from the 1950s (Hush-A-Phone) relates to AT&T threatening to cut service to customers who dared to install a metal cup on their telephone receiver to muffle the sound of their conversation.


Yup. The supercars also famously ban some owners from purchasing them again, e.g., Ferrari:

https://www.hotcars.com/banned-for-life-celebrities-ferrari/


The 1900 equivalent then would be if Ford showed up at your house and removed the car’s starter. Making the thing you own functionally useless (while you still own it) seems categorically different to me than repossession in violation of a contract.


You're obviosuly just leasing a 100k dollar vehicle here, but you can't get your money back... Or get free service... Or use it for longer than 3.8 years...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: