> I wonder how I'll ever be able to use the code I wrote over the years that controls uncounted lathes, mills, plasmacutters, lasers and a whole raft of other industrial tools.
You are knowledgeable enough to make them work. Many aren't. Some can't be. Hacking requires knowledge and skill, and most importantly, being contained. Cutting yourself with your self-programmed hackable laser in your garage is unfortunate, but cutting other people is a disaster you can't afford.
> Vehicles are hackable, but they're not documented which makes them more dangerous, not less dangerous. Witness comma.ai and others.
I see two points here.
1. Security through obscurity is bad. That's true, but we have "business" in the play, so that's how it goes. Maybe push for better regulation.
2. comma.ai, an "autopilot", based on reverse engineering, or as you put it, the base product "not documented", thus makes it "more dangerous". No, it's dangerous not because the base product is not documented, but because there's no real autopilot at the moment, and comma.ai is irresponsibly advertising as being able to "drive for hours without driver action". There are many "black box" products with a ToS that forbid reverse engineering. Does that make the product inherently more dangerous too?
Besides, you seem to suggest that, with open products, people can not make things unsafer. That's not true. Some don't know what they are doing when they "hack" things.
You are knowledgeable enough to make them work. Many aren't. Some can't be. Hacking requires knowledge and skill, and most importantly, being contained. Cutting yourself with your self-programmed hackable laser in your garage is unfortunate, but cutting other people is a disaster you can't afford.
> Vehicles are hackable, but they're not documented which makes them more dangerous, not less dangerous. Witness comma.ai and others.
I see two points here.
1. Security through obscurity is bad. That's true, but we have "business" in the play, so that's how it goes. Maybe push for better regulation.
2. comma.ai, an "autopilot", based on reverse engineering, or as you put it, the base product "not documented", thus makes it "more dangerous". No, it's dangerous not because the base product is not documented, but because there's no real autopilot at the moment, and comma.ai is irresponsibly advertising as being able to "drive for hours without driver action". There are many "black box" products with a ToS that forbid reverse engineering. Does that make the product inherently more dangerous too?
Besides, you seem to suggest that, with open products, people can not make things unsafer. That's not true. Some don't know what they are doing when they "hack" things.