Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Protest against the EU radio lockdown

blog.mehl.mx

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 79 posts

Re: Protest against the EU radio lockdown

#61

Post by IndrekR »

ivanbakel wrote: post #3

What would be the motivator for this kind of clause? I can't imagine radio-device manufacturers would appreciate the additional expense, and at least some of them must benefit from consumers buying those products specifically for customization. Are the national governments pushing for more radio control? Is there some kind of crisis of radio abuse? Or is it an indirect way to give governments more punishment tools, b…

Disclaimer: Automated hardware unit tests and test devices, including RF tests for firmware developers, are bringing bread to my table.

Looking at this rule from another angle, I think the objective is to have a single entity to blame if interfering device is found. In this context this may seem rational -- all the firmware released that is mangling with intentional radiators needs to be tested to prove it is compliant. However, the method creates extra complexity for the device manufacturers and as time has shown -- does not really improve the matters in the long term, you will just get a fleet of devices running old firmware with unfixed bugs. Manufacturers often do not like it either, specially in the management.

I think it may be a classical example of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" or Hanlon's razor*

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Re: Protest against the EU radio lockdown

#63

Post by Dylan16807 »

ben_w wrote: post #36
dTal wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So can wheels. You shouldn't ban general purpose technology because of particular bad uses.

“Regulate” != “Ban” And in this case, the proposed regulation is: “””[R]adio equipment [shall support] certain features in order to ensure that software can only be loaded into the radio equipment where the compliance of the combination of the radio equipment and software has been demonstrated.””” Now I don’t think that’s a well written rule, but my problem is the specifics rather than the general idea. I think that…

> “Regulate” != “Ban”

Imagine how ridiculous it would be to have a regulation on wheels that they must try to prevent being installed on non-approved devices.

Re: Protest against the EU radio lockdown

#64

Post by UncleEntity »

raverbashing wrote: post #38

I remember that the FCC has a similar requirement, and that was one of the issues behind "no open source drivers for wifi modules" This shouldn't affect OpenWRT if it uses a standard driver, unless I'm mistaken (or "radio equipment" means the whole thing and not just the radio module - but that's up to debate)

> I remember that the FCC has a similar requirement...

Which is better IMHO.

You can sue the FCC if you think they overstepped their bounds as opposed to getting a bunch of politicians behind the repeal of a bad law (which otherwise can only be overturned if it violates the constitution).

Or, as sometimes happens, the FCC realizes they made a mistake and/or "conditions on the ground" change and they decide to change the requirements -- also without involving the lawmakers.

Re: Protest against the EU radio lockdown

#66

Post by pas »

sjwpv wrote: post #60
jessaustin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make the situation different. All of these bad laws have supporters. (Largely because charlatans in government, law enforcement, and media constantly exaggerate dangers, but that's beside the point.)

By "bad law" I meant laws with absolutely no public support, not laws which are "objectively bad" (such thing made doesn't make sense)

There's plenty of public support for even the most dystopian laws.

Re: Protest against the EU radio lockdown

#67

Post by pas »

x38iq84n wrote: post #43
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then give feedback. The process is open for that reason. If you remove the EU from this you will have the insividual regulators ask for the same. Austria and Switzerland for instance push for this. //edit: also even the proposed regulation would not prevent custom firmwares. You just meed to lock down the radio.

This. Article 13. Article 11. TTIP. CETA. Stupid ideas coming out of EU are more and more frequent. I don't want to give feedback. I want accountable and professional political representation that will not dare to come up with such ideas in the first place.

What's your problem with CETA?

TTIP would have been a good step forward to harmonize US-EU-Japan regulations on a lot of things.

I'm not saying there were no problematic parts of trade agreements (US' strong intellectual protection and sort of lax food safety regulations are always a big worry for example).

Re: Protest against the EU radio lockdown

#68

Post by johnnycab »

After a quick read, the amendment in this directive seems far too general to be enforced effectively. If you parse it with the FOSS principles and revoking the ability to flash or install LineageOS, OpenWRT, Tasmota etc., it is counter-intuitive to some of the principles empowering consumers e.g. restricting locked bootloaders by carriers.

If passed into law, it might make a test-case for sales of rogue drones but it won't be able to stop Baofeng handsets flooding a market. The EU needs reminding that restricting freedom in this way is a terrible idea.

Re: Protest against the EU radio lockdown

#70

Post by raverbashing »

UncleEntity wrote: post #64
raverbashing wrote: post #38

I remember that the FCC has a similar requirement, and that was one of the issues behind "no open source drivers for wifi modules" This shouldn't affect OpenWRT if it uses a standard driver, unless I'm mistaken (or "radio equipment" means the whole thing and not just the radio module - but that's up to debate)

> I remember that the FCC has a similar requirement... Which is better IMHO. You can sue the FCC if you think they overstepped their bounds as opposed to getting a bunch of politicians behind the repeal of a bad law (which otherwise can only be overturned if it violates the constitution). Or, as sometimes happens, the FCC realizes they made a mistake and/or "conditions on the ground" change and they decide to change…

You're probably right, and the FCC is more technically competent
Post reply on HN