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

81–90 of 94 posts

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

#81

Post by marc_abonce »

az09mugen wrote: post #74
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Parts of your own body are not your property but are merely licensed to you, and the license can be modified or withdrawn at the pleasure of the licensor) Legi…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.

Most open source licenses already include that in a "no warranty" clause that is supposed to cover this.

I don't know anything about law, but it looks like in jurisdictions where this clause doesn't apply, signing a separate contract wouldn't help either: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/1410/do-warranty-dis...

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

#83

Post by chpatrick »

eikenberry wrote: post #31
chpatrick wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society doesn't have to give you the rope to hang yourself.

I disagree or rather yes, it does have the responsibility to provide you a rope. It is up to you whether you hang yourself or not.

I disagree, I think if you walk into a pharmacy and ask for something dangerous without a prescription they shouldn't be obligated to give it to you. It's the same with medical equipment that keeps you alive.

If you want to risk your life you can do it but no one should be compelled to help you.

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

#84

Post by Projectiboga »

Abott is sketchy w their Freestyle Libre blood sugar sensors. They only allow them to pair w a single device. This summer I had their external device die and I had to get a third party app to read the data from the still functioning sensor. I refuse to use their official app as it can't be silenced. Dexcom was worse both their app and the external reader had an insane fixed "sensor will expire in 6 hours", no way to mute, adjust, this thing was going off at whatever hour of the night it wanted. I lived fine being insulin dependent for 40 years, and the ease and extra data like an overnight graph are all great. Making noise can and should be default, but I should be able to silence it and I'd click an absolution of liability, these things have to fit into life not the other way around.

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

#85

Post by [deleted] »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #71
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#86

Post by schiffern »

ketzo wrote: post #36
schiffern wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Homebrew modifications of that software, even in the name of “freedom”, risks the patient’s life and health and should be illegal if uncertified. The official modifications of that software — in the name of "profit" — are currently risking the patient’s life and health, and therefore should also be illegal by your logic. Surely you must also support effective (ie harsh/deterrent) prosecution and punishment for thes…

This is a huge straw man/whataboutism that contributes nothing to the discussion. Yes, bad software modifications are bad and should be punished wherever they arise. Homebrew modifications make it way easier for bad stuff to happen, and make it harder to punish.

  >  This is a huge straw man/whataboutism that contributes nothing to the discussion.
It's a countervailing concern, not a strawman.

  > bad software modifications... should be punished wherever they arise
Corporations are currently unpunished (per TFA) when they alter software in a way that risks patient safety, and they have already caused documented harm to patients. This is a shocking failure of federal oversight, but the captured FDA will (by design) never fix it. Oops.

In light of the real harm caused by this neverending policy failure, the Library of Congress is morally and ethically obligated to permit fair use exemption. Individuals and homebrew communities must be unshackled to protect patients from the real (not hypothetical!), documented, and widespread harm caused by corporate-sponsored attacks on US medical infrastructure.

No, that's not an exaggeration.

Given the current anti-patient landscape, the protections of open source far outweigh any risk.

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

#87

Post by kornhole »

Future HN Thread:

To get my UBI payments in CBDC, I was required to have a chip inserted in my hand. Little did I know that this chip also was scanned and read every time I stepped into a vehicle and from beacons all over town. How can I get this out and still get my money to live?

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

#88

Post by thfuran »

marc_abonce wrote: post #81
az09mugen wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most open source licenses already include that in a "no warranty" clause that is supposed to cover this. I don't know anything about law, but it looks like in jurisdictions where this clause doesn't apply, signing a separate contract wouldn't help either: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/1410/do-warranty-dis...

But that's pretty much the opposite of how medical device certification works.

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

#89

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl »

graphe wrote: post #52
mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, if it was illegal he'd have access to his data. I'm not saying medical equipment should be illegal. And to be clear, I wasn't saying he should have refused treatment. I was saying I wish more programmers would refuse to help develop exploitative software like this.

I don't think he had a choice. If you had a good doctor that liked da Vinci robotic surgery, versus another one that did raven II would that factor more than the reputation of the doctor? Programmers who make life saving software are good in my opinion, even if the company they work for wants to make money. I think we should strive for the best features, and also be grateful for "fascist trailblazers". Shockley was k…

Did you seriously just use the holocaust as an example of successful R&D?

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

#90

Post by alexvoda »

graphe wrote: post #52
mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, if it was illegal he'd have access to his data. I'm not saying medical equipment should be illegal. And to be clear, I wasn't saying he should have refused treatment. I was saying I wish more programmers would refuse to help develop exploitative software like this.

I don't think he had a choice. If you had a good doctor that liked da Vinci robotic surgery, versus another one that did raven II would that factor more than the reputation of the doctor? Programmers who make life saving software are good in my opinion, even if the company they work for wants to make money. I think we should strive for the best features, and also be grateful for "fascist trailblazers". Shockley was k…

I would argue that the discoveries would have happened anyway sooner or later even without unethical assholes. And for every example of a step of progress accelerated by them there is an example of a step of progress held back by them.

We do not need the monsters to make progress. Don't try to justify their inexcusable actions in some myopic utilitarian way.

Post reply on HN