undefined | Better HN

0 pointshgs32y ago0 comments

Bad software won't give you food poisoning.

Regulations can make sense for software that could cause physical harm - like the software in an implanted medical device - but most software doesn't fall in that category. The CRA is about "security" not about "physical harm" - they are two different things. Regulations for the latter would likely receive less pushback.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

troupo2y ago· 2 in thread

Hacking risk leads to recall of 500,000 pacemakers due to patient death fears https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/31/hacking-r...

Your distinction is without meaning

hgs3OP2y ago

> Hacking risk leads to recall of 500,000 pacemakers due to patient death fears

A recall was issued therefore there is already regulatory oversight where it counts. The CRA is at best redundant and at worst a prime example of regulatory capture [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

troupo2y ago

> A recall was issued therefore there is already regulatory oversight where it counts.

Just because a recall was issued doesn't imply that there's a regulatory oversight. And even that oversight exists in that particular case doesn't mean it is applicable to other areas.

What it does mean is that you're weak attempt to paint software being exempt because it "doesn't lead to food poisoning" is weak and uninformed at best.

> The CRA is at best redundant

It's not

> at worst a prime example of regulatory capture

Again, it's not.

Just because you engage in FUDing, doesn't make your words true.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse