[Battlemesh] [Office] FCC Firmware lockdown
paul at servalproject.org
Fri Sep 4 10:33:45 CEST 2015
There is that! And indeed this is a point that should be made, that it will
be ineffective, but only provide an unnecessary drag on helpful innovation.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Henning Rogge <hrogge at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Paul Gardner-Stephen
> <paul at servalproject.org> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I am considering trying to pull together a submission to the FCC about
> > rule if anyone is willing to help out. We need to start by enumerating
> > problems we see with it. Here is a starting list:
> > 1. Prevents reflashing equipment for use in other jurisdictions.
> > 2. Prevents innovation and repurposing equipment, such as to respond to
> > humanitarian situations, including for projects such as the Serval
> > and others who are being funded by USAID or other US government entities
> > accomplish exactly this goal.
> > 3. Prevents update of firmware on equipment to close security
> > vulnerabilities.
> > 4. Increases cost burden for manufacturers, resulting in higher costs to
> > consumers.
> > 5. Will be of questionable effectiveness (but we need to explain why)
> Maybe we could just tell them what happened BEFORE routers were sold
> unlocked... it took a few month and then people found security holes
> to break them open.
> Henning Rogge
> Battlemesh mailing list
> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Battlemesh