This is a cool article, and neat he got it working in the end.
One thing that is odd - if he blocked it calling home, it doesn't make sense that the kill code was issued remotely. It makes more sense that there is a line of code internally that kills the machine when it can't call home (which would be far less malicious).
That would in many ways be even worse because it means that if the manufacturer were to go out of business all of the stuff they sold would stop working. That's more malicious, not less.
He implied they were remoting in after he blocked network traffic. It could easilyl be a standard exception handling approache when it can't call home and fetch latest settings etc. It might not be malicious - not defending the architecture, just think that there is an assumption of intent here.
Whether they remote into his device or it kills itself is irrelevant except that if it's local code that's even worse, as they've programmed in future obsolescence. That is indefensible, full stop, do not pass go.
If you sell me silverware that, unless I share my eating habits with you, automatically disintegrates, or if you break in and steal them back, what truly is the difference?
It's funny you think a vacuum automatically bricking itself if you try to prevent its connection to the mothership is at all equivalent to someone choosing to give someone silverware.
it's funny you read my comment in a way I did not write. User asked for an explanation of the difference between two fairly scenarios, so I provided one.
How has making up things that other people haven't said been working out for you?
Your comments would come off a lot better, and the conversation would be less shitty, if you'd just leave off the last sentence. It's pervasive across HN, so it's not just you, but just FYI. Just write out the whole comment, including the qwip at the end that you just can't help, and post it, and then edit the comment and delete it.
The contrast is that the vacuum isn't a sentient being, and so from there, you don't see the device reaching out, vs being told what to do, as being any different. I'm not a judge in overseeing a court case in your jurisdiction though, so no matter how much of a distinction I personally may think there is, is irrelevant.
One thing that is odd - if he blocked it calling home, it doesn't make sense that the kill code was issued remotely. It makes more sense that there is a line of code internally that kills the machine when it can't call home (which would be far less malicious).