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

Software that supports your body should always respect your freedom

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: Software that supports your body should always respect your freedom

#71

Post by Kim_Bruning »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #54
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #5

Software that your life depends on should be required to respect the four software freedoms (run, study, copy, modify). If the four freedoms don't apply in the context of your own bodily autonomy, where else could they be more important? (Consider the inverse: Parts of your own body are not your property but are merely licensed to you, and the license can be modified or withdrawn at the pleasure of the licensor) Legi…

> If the four freedoms don't apply in the context of your own bodily autonomy, where else could they be more important? I’ve got bad news unfortunately. Bodily autonomy has never really been all that free in practice for the last few thousand years at least. We’re making some progress at least.

Really depends which country you're in. Even just the west is not homogeneous on this point.

Re: Software that supports your body should always respect your freedom

#73

Post by oconnor663 »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #19
throwawaysleep wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you would prefer it not be developed?

The software is clearly not the primary product. While there might need to be a carve out or a specific licensing scheme developed to protect them from liability in the case of modified software, I doubt these companies would experience serious financial setbacks if they made their software free and open. And don't tell me that SaaS is an integral part of the business model for medical device companies. There's no wo…

> The software is clearly not the primary product.

Sure, in this case. But that means that the rule we're considering actually needs a big asterisk next to it, something like "when the software in question isn't the primary product." That sounds like a thorny regulatory question, and any answer to that question other than "I know it when I see it" probably has big loopholes. This might be unnecessary nitpicking on my part if we're just shooting the breeze about companies we don't like, but if we're actually interested in writing laws, this is a common failure mode. Maybe _the_ common failure mode.

On the other hand, "so you would prefer it not be developed" is a less-than-entirely-charitable way of making this point. Of course @mbakke would _not_ prefer that, and it might avoid an unnecessary round of back-and-forth to make a reasonable guess about what they would prefer and work from there :)

Re: Software that supports your body should always respect your freedom

#74

Post by az09mugen »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #5

Software that your life depends on should be required to respect the four software freedoms (run, study, copy, modify). If the four freedoms don't apply in the context of your own bodily autonomy, where else could they be more important? (Consider the inverse: Parts of your own body are not your property but are merely licensed to you, and the license can be modified or withdrawn at the pleasure of the licensor) Legi…

2 cents : But then there should be a contract between the user who gains the ability to read/modify the software, discharging the software company in case the user causes a bug resulting in a health problem or even worse. Or something like that I suppose.

Re: Software that supports your body should always respect your freedom

#75

Post by isbwkisbakadqv »

notjoemama wrote: post #65
worik wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bodily autonomy has never really been all that free in practice for the last few thousand years at least. We’re making some progress at least. In the context of the repeal of Roe V Wade....

Or the ruling in the first place…

Right to someone else’s blood supply via placenta?

Re: Software that supports your body should always respect your freedom

#76

Post by KevinGlass »

7e wrote: post #10
mbakke wrote: post #4

Great article. Real life horror stories of life-critical software gore, with some good news at the end. It should be illegal to sell software that someones life depends upon without giving the user the right to inspect and modify the code.

Quality of life critical software should be ensured by FDA certification. Homebrew modifications of that software, even in the name of “freedom”, risks the patient’s life and health and should be illegal if uncertified.

Safetism is a great curse on the world. I cannot disagree with you more.

Re: Software that supports your body should always respect your freedom

#78

Post by bitwize »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #5

Software that your life depends on should be required to respect the four software freedoms (run, study, copy, modify). If the four freedoms don't apply in the context of your own bodily autonomy, where else could they be more important? (Consider the inverse: Parts of your own body are not your property but are merely licensed to you, and the license can be modified or withdrawn at the pleasure of the licensor) Legi…

> (Consider the inverse: Parts of your own body are not your property but are merely licensed to you, and the license can be modified or withdrawn at the pleasure of the licensor)

This has been pretty much a cyberpunk trope since Neuromancer. Nice job making the dystopia reality, capitalism.

Re: Software that supports your body should always respect your freedom

#79

Post by leereeves »

isbwkisbakadqv wrote: post #75
notjoemama wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the ruling in the first place…

Right to someone else’s blood supply via placenta?

The rules are different for parents. It's almost universally agreed that (at least once born) a child's needs are more important than parents' freedom.

Re: Software that supports your body should always respect your freedom

#80

Post by mixmastamyk »

dheera wrote: post #26
subw00f wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nuts. Who charges you? Is it the company that makes these devices? What if you want a different “provider”?

Stanford Healthcare charges me for "general classification" just for a nurse to open up their computer and see that there are zero events. Boston Scientific, the device maker, does not have an interface for patients, they only send data to hospitals directly. I'm not currently willing to switch to a different ICD because Boston Scientific's ICD has successfully saved my life 3/3 times in out-of-hospital situations an…

I see you have your hands full, but perhaps a class action lawsuit should be in order.
Post reply on HN