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

My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 268 posts

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#171

Post by mindslight »

habinero wrote: post #168
mindslight wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying in a plane you built yourself is likely safer than flying in the same model of plane built by a company that assembled it for you using lowest-bid labor while making you sign a twenty page lawyer barf disclaiming liability.

Are you really comparing an amateur skillset to designs from paid engineers made on a company assembly line with QC? Why on earth would you think an experimental aircraft made by a hobbyist would be safer?

See my other follow up comment ("same model"). Medical device software development feels much closer to homegrown (or worse) than aeronautical engineering.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#172

Post by AnthonyMouse »

gpm wrote: post #148
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the part that would violate the first sale doctrine?

No, not if the same itself was unlawful because Alice signed a contract to not sell it like that. The GPL notably allows for the sale, it was legal here.

> No, not if the same itself was unlawful because Alice signed a contract to not sell it like that.

It's the contract that's the violation, isn't it? What would the first sale doctrine be if in order to get a copy you could be required to sign a contract not to exercise your rights under it? For that matter, how could state-level contract law override the federal first sale doctrine?

The "derivative work" hack also seems kind of fragile. The normal way to get someone to agree to something is that they need a right from the license, which they then don't get if they don't agree to it. But if it doesn't give them anything that they need then "there are ways to use the copy they own and have a right to use without agreeing to any additional terms" is more like the default you're trying to hack your way out of than something they're exploiting a loophole to get into, and where does that leave you if anything slips?

Suppose Alice is a three year old. She owns the copy, she presses the button and now she has a running copy even though she's not competent to enter into a contract, and then Bob buys it from her. Or Alice owns the copy and Carol presses the button, and then maybe Carol could be sued, but also maybe Carol lives in another country, and either way Alice now owns a running copy she never agreed not to sell. And then you want to be able to say "but that's cheating" except that it's not any less cheating than what you were doing to try to get them to agree to it.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#173

Post by f1shy »

schmuckonwheels wrote: post #74
JoshTriplett wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an open legal question, which the Conservancy v Vizio case will hopefully change; in that case, Conservancy is arguing that consumers have the right to enforce the GPL in order to receive source code.

This got buried on HN a few days ago which is a shame: https://social.kernel.org/notice/B1aR6QFuzksLVSyBZQ Linus rants that the SFC is wrong and argues that the GPLv2 which the kernel is licensed under does NOT force you to open your hardware. The spirit of the GPLv2 was about contributing software improvements back to the community. Which brings us to the question: what is this guy going to do with (presumably) the…

>> Try and run custom software on his medical device which can likely kill him? More than likely

I think this sentence is very sad. Not only this is a hard accusation, it is also the primary argument of the anti right to repair movement. An argument that I think is extremely bogus and ill intentioned, and I particularly (like Mr. Rossman) viscerally dislike.

Maybe the primary motivation is a) curiosity, and b) just for kicks to know if they honor the license.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#174

Post by f1shy »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #112
jacquesm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of people hacking on insulin pumps and they are lightyears ahead of commerce. If you want a very interesting rabbit hole to dive into try 'artificial pancreas hacking' as google feed. One interesting link: https://www.drugtopics.com/view/hacking-diabetes-the-diy-bio... I would trust the people that hack on these systems to be even more motivated than the manufacturers to make sure they don't fuck up,…

> it's the equivalent of flying a plane you built yourself A great analogy because people die that way. I personally would never push code to another person’s insulin pump (or advertise code as being used for an insulin pump) because I couldn’t live with the guilt if my bug got someone else killed.

Anytime anybody does something himself, there is a risk. People die because of welding parts cleaned with break-cleaner, people die driving, diving, sky-diving, doing bungee jumping...

Advertising that code, IMHO would be as showing of you doing extreme sports, for example. I do not think is any bad. A good disclaimer should be enough to take away any guilt.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#175

Post by AnthonyMouse »

tstrimple wrote: post #162
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Definitely not the untested code I wrote myself! Nobody said it was untested. > How many times have you unwillingly introduced bugs into a code base you didn’t fully understand? That’s basically table stakes for software engineering. Which applies just the same to the people the company hired to do it, and now we're back to "the people with a stronger incentive to get it right are the people who die if it goes wron…

Tested how? With 100% "unit test" coverage? I can certainly see how a random person on the internet might be highly motivated and actually talented enough to contribute to these sorts of projects. But they don't have the budget and resources that commercial entities have. They don't have the same due diligence requirements. They don't have the same liability. If I use a commercial device unaltered, it's the company's…

> But they don't have the budget and resources that commercial entities have.

Everyone is standing on the shoulders of giants. You're not going from stone tools to jet engines in a month, but you could fix a bug in one in that time.

> They don't have the same due diligence requirements. They don't have the same liability.

Things that exist to try to mitigate the misalignment of incentives that comes from paying someone else to create something you depend on. Better for the incentives to align to begin with.

Notice also that these things are floors, not ceilings. The company is only required to do the minimum. You can exceed it by as much as you like.

> If I use a commercial device unaltered, it's the company's fault if the device fucks up or is defective and causes harm. If I install random internet software on my medical device and it fucks up and causes harm, it's my fault.

And then if the community version fixes a bug that would have killed you and you stick with the commercial version you can sue them for killing you. Except that you're dead.

> There is simply no way random folks on the internet can test these types of systems to any reliable degree.

Basically the entire population is on the internet, so the set of them includes all the people doing it for a corporation. Are they going to forget how to do their jobs when they go home, or when they or a member of their family gets issued another company's device and they want it to be right?

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#176

Post by f1shy »

tstrimple wrote: post #162
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Definitely not the untested code I wrote myself! Nobody said it was untested. > How many times have you unwillingly introduced bugs into a code base you didn’t fully understand? That’s basically table stakes for software engineering. Which applies just the same to the people the company hired to do it, and now we're back to "the people with a stronger incentive to get it right are the people who die if it goes wron…

Tested how? With 100% "unit test" coverage? I can certainly see how a random person on the internet might be highly motivated and actually talented enough to contribute to these sorts of projects. But they don't have the budget and resources that commercial entities have. They don't have the same due diligence requirements. They don't have the same liability. If I use a commercial device unaltered, it's the company's…

Why do people think constantly something made by some random company is automatically better than something made "DIY".

I totally understand, that because of liability and some more availability of resources, you would expect a company product to be "safe". BUT: if it is your butt that is going to be in the line, then I bet you: you will be much more careful that a random engineer in some random company. About the resources available in a big company, they are usually more directed to marketing, legal (including lobbing to avoid right to repair) and oder areas to maximize revenue, and not exactly in quality.

I worked in 2 different big companies which worked in "mission critical systems" and boy! I can tell you some stories about how unsafe is what they do, and how much money is invested in "cover your ass" instead of making products better/safer.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#177

Post by f1shy »

habinero wrote: post #168
mindslight wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying in a plane you built yourself is likely safer than flying in the same model of plane built by a company that assembled it for you using lowest-bid labor while making you sign a twenty page lawyer barf disclaiming liability.

Are you really comparing an amateur skillset to designs from paid engineers made on a company assembly line with QC? Why on earth would you think an experimental aircraft made by a hobbyist would be safer?

Why do you think a random person, who is VERY passionate about something, as to invest all the free hours in life to do something, is less skilled that one who just does it because is needed to survive?

Sorry. I would be much more inclined to have something made by somebody passionate about it, as done by some guy that received hopefully some kind of instruction on how to do things and was then left alone.

In this context (GA) we are not comparing Airbus/Boeing with a garage build. We are comparing some small company making 2 seaters with your hangar and maybe 10 certified aircraft mechanics that will help you a lot on the process.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#178

Post by tavavex »

socalgal2 wrote: post #143
jacquesm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of people hacking on insulin pumps and they are lightyears ahead of commerce. If you want a very interesting rabbit hole to dive into try 'artificial pancreas hacking' as google feed. One interesting link: https://www.drugtopics.com/view/hacking-diabetes-the-diy-bio... I would trust the people that hack on these systems to be even more motivated than the manufacturers to make sure they don't fuck up,…

> I would trust the people that hack on these systems to be even more motivated than the manufacturers to make sure they don't fuck up I would think it's the opposite. People that hack on this only risk their own life. Companies risk many people's lives and will get sued. Of course the person doing the hacking doesn't want to die but they're also willing to take the risk.

The absolute worst-case scenario of messing this up as a company is that you get sued and they win, or you're forced to settle. You pay out some money, post a public apology, whatever. If things get really bad, the company goes under. But you're likely still far richer than the average person, and the blame is distributed enough that no one gets a criminal sentence - not that it was a realistic option to begin with.

The baseline worst-case scenario of messing this up on yourself is that you die.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#179

Post by tstrimple »

f1shy wrote: post #176
tstrimple wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tested how? With 100% "unit test" coverage? I can certainly see how a random person on the internet might be highly motivated and actually talented enough to contribute to these sorts of projects. But they don't have the budget and resources that commercial entities have. They don't have the same due diligence requirements. They don't have the same liability. If I use a commercial device unaltered, it's the company's…

Why do people think constantly something made by some random company is automatically better than something made "DIY". I totally understand, that because of liability and some more availability of resources, you would expect a company product to be "safe". BUT: if it is your butt that is going to be in the line, then I bet you: you will be much more careful that a random engineer in some random company. About the re…

I thought I explained it, but I'll break it down into smaller words. Medical software doesn't just have to solve one particular users's problems. It has to be generalized to the majority of folk seeking treatment for a particular problem. If one particular CPAP user is able to tweak their settings to work better for their particular lifestyle, it is not generalizeable to every CPAP user. A corporation offering a general solution is put under *far* more scrutiny than a random github repo is. A corporation can be sued for releasing a product that kills people, but good luck convincing a court that your family deserves restitution for you installing a random script you found on the internet into your insulin pump.

This has fuck all to do with how much corporations care about people. It has everything to do with liability laws and how victims can get restitution. It has everything to do with the actual risks of installing random internet scripts versus the corporations who have to jump through regulatory hoops. And it's not to say corporations get everything right. They fuck things up constantly. But they fuck things up constantly with oversight and regulation and you want me to believe random internet users will make a better product without it. It's nonsense.

Re: My insulin pump controller uses the Linux kernel. It also violates the GPL

#180

Post by f1shy »

It shocks me how much comments, here in HACKER news, are something like:

"Why do you want the source code?! leave it alone! Don't touch it, is unsafe! Big Pharma companies know much better than you what they do!"

REALLY?! REALLY?!

I'm not saying, go changing the SW like crazy. Is clear it can kill you. But this "anybody who is not a mega pharma company is absolutely unable to do anything right, you will absolutely kill yourself if you look at the code" that is just... idk... so low.

It may be named hacker news, but boy, many people here are not remotely near what I would call a hacker...

Post reply on HN