When your heart is running on proprietary code, literally

5 réponses [Dernière contribution]
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 09/29/2009

“I Want to Know What Code Is Running Inside My Body” — Backchannel

mangeur de nuage
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 09/27/2015

Beautiful and sad story

EDIT:thanks for the story

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 08/11/2014

On the libreplanet mailing list's thread, there were some people that said the person with the device in their bodies should be able to update the software--
Of course, there may be bugs in the official software, but I'd say it *is* safer if only authorized people (staff) can update the software.
Let's say hobbiest programmer A fixes a bug in the device. There isn't any team to check or make sure it's correct. Programmer A gets it to compile, installs it, and someone could die.
If it's possible at all, it should be a very difficult process.
But I honestly think that the source code should be publicly released so that anyone can audit it-- if someone finds a bug, then the manufacturer would be compelled to fix it.
Then, the manufacturer releases an update which finally brings the fix to the public.
That way bugs still get fixed and there aren't issues with insurance or warranties, etc.

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/30/2012

That's sort of true, but there are all kinds of things you can try to do to yourself that can kill you. For example, you can trust some random stranger on the Internet to sell you a miracle cure and end up drinking a deadly bleach as a result (that's a real thing; it's called "MMS"). It's not a justification for someone else to have exclusive control over an implant in your body. People just need to be made aware that screwing around with the implant's source code is highly dangerous and that they should absolutely avoid doing it. People who ignore this and start screwing around with it anyway will always exist, but what can you do? Taking their liberty away to protect them from themselves is unjust.

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 12/21/2015

It´s a crime to privatize the source code of the software, and worst when it´s inside a person. I think she should use a shirt where it says "Propietary software inside, danger of death. Fight for free software, fight for LIFE"

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 04/24/2013

Three things: 1) Unexpected access to the pacemaker's parameters may have happened after discharge from the hospital. 2) The patient's right to verify parameters on a device that is paid for and inside the patient, in this case is not even firmware, should be possible.
3) Anything that can potentially be hacked by a third party needs to be checked and verified by the authorized user.
Essential data should be available read-only, and if a checksum breach on parameters has occured since the implant was commisioned, access to such information should be triggered by an alarm yet should be protected by a patient's password for non-disclosure common sense. Patient diagnostic data and medication reports are not intended for the public domain. It is another topic if an insurance company is honest with it.