You must log in or register to comment.
It reportedly checks subscription upon putting the vest on and supposedly won’t turn off mid ride.
And if there’s a bug in that code, you’re fucked.
Safety features should work if everything else fails. Their failure mode can’t be “fuck it, it didn’t work”. Which is directly opposite to the failure mode of a subscription based service.
This is why:
-
The FTC needs to do its job and start outlawing all these obscene subscription business models for things that are rightfully products, not services. Where’s my goddamned First Sale Doctrine, FTC?!
-
Software Engineers working on commercial products need to be professionally licensed, so that proper consequences can be applied for unethical “fail-deadly” designs like this one.
As a software engineer, the thought of my code being responsible for someone’s safety is fucking terrifying. Thankfully I’m not in that kind of position.
From experience though, I can tell you that most of the reasons software is shitty is because of middle or upper management, either forcing idiotic business requirements (like a subscription where it doesn’t fucking belong!) or just not allocating time to button things up. I can guarantee that every engineer that worked on that thing hated it and thought it was fucking stupid.
Licensing would be overkill for most software as it’s not usually life and death. I think in this case since it’s safety equipment it really should have been rejected by NHTSA before it ever hit stores.
-
The problem is the subscription, not how it was implemented
Yes, but also from an implementation perspective: if I’m making code that might kill somebody if it fails, I want it to be as deterministic and simple as possible. Under no circumstances do I want it:
- checking an external authentication service.
- connected to the internet in any way.
- have multiple services which interact over an API. Hell, even FFIs would be in the “only if I have to” bucket.
If the customer is dead, they definitely can’t renew.
Who wouldn’t tout your service if it saved them?
But also… why the fuck does this require a sub?
Honestly the fact that it has code that says “under condition X, don’t save the user” is concerning in and of itself. I wouldn’t trust this thing in the first place.
First law of robotics:
Money up front.
What will be interesting is how a false negative plays out. A vest fails, someone dies yet the subscription is current: how does the lawsuit play out?
See, when a life-saving device can fail due to software bugs, our brains point to malicious negligence when it does fail. It’s no longer a badly packed parachute but a company whose billing department wants to kill poor people.
It’s a subscription service for an airbag vest. They’d rather have you die than not pay for a product you already purchased. I’d say that whether or not there’s a mechanical failure, the billing department does want to kill poor people.
Limited liability. Negotiate with the family of the victim, ideally don’t pay at all if you can get away with it, and move on. Product management and marketing had a great idea to increase user retention, more in the meeting at 11.
