[dwg]

Why they should electronic makers be "required" to do supply security updates and spare parts for 10 years? To begin with, 10 years is somewhat arbitrary. Why not 12? 15? 20? These tractors could be serviceable for 50 years or more? So why not 50?

Not every consumer wants or cares about this, but every consumer would be forced to pay for it. How would this even be enforced? Who will be the judge of what updates were important and what were not? What if they provide only cheap replacement parts which regularly fail? What if the company goes out of business a few years later? So many problems...

In my opinion it's one thing to create protections that prevent the stoppage of unauthorized repair, or the development of 3rd party replacement parts. However, it's another thing entirely to force companies to provide these services themselves for an arbitrary length of time.

[ClumsyPilot]

Security updates should absolutely be a legal obligation. Their absence enables theft, criminal activity, botnets, etc.

For the same reason we have laws on fire safety, food safety, carcinogens and asbestos. Average consumer may not know or care about their existence. But if we get rid if them all, organised society will collapse.

[ClumsyPilot]

At the very least the manufacturer should tell me in a legally binding statement, for how long a product will be supported.

[dwg]

I can totally get behind them having to enter into a legally binding statement, given that it increases the transparency allowing me to make an informed decision as a buyer.

However I still have difficulty in the grey area between "security" and "other" update...

[ClumsyPilot]

Well, sure its grey but it's a finite and definable quantity

Addressing known and reported vulnerabilities would be a start - many routers and phones have known vulnerabilities and can be pwned in minutes.

Then I would include degradation of service - example, I have samsung bluray box that came with YouTube functionality. Withing 1 year that didnt work any more because of changes to youtube. Withing a period of time they should be judged to maintain such software degradations.

[baroffoos]

I'm happy to listen to alternative solutions on how the environment can be protected from needless product waste. And no, recycling doesn't come close to reuse/repairs.

>Not every consumer wants or cares about this

What consumers want or care about is less important than the ability to live on the planet in 100 years.

[dwg]

My argument was from the standpoint of consumer protection. If environmental protection is your goal, then I would point out a few issues.

Newer products are often more efficient. It's not clear to me that supporting older products is always better for the environment. For example, newer tractors may be orders of magnitude more efficient in fuel consumption and pollution control. I don't know this for a fact but I think there is sufficient precedent to make this assumption for at least some products. Many consumers will favor short-term gains (not having to pay the cost of a new tractor) over long-term solutions (upgrading and recycling equipment).

Leaving aside products that fit into the above category, lets look at an example of a product commonly discarded before it's usable life. Laptops, for example.

Here again it's not clear to me that legislating requirements for spare parts and security updates would make much difference. After 5 years or so all the laptops of average users that I've encountered are in terrible shape. Tons of spyware, extremely slow, and almost unusable. In this case I would usually just erase and reinstall. Now add a broken part to the list. Especially on cheap laptops, components are increasingly integrated so a single broken part could mean replacing essentially 50% of the machine. Laptops are so cheap. What do you think the consumer will chose: pay for the repair and cleanup of an essentially useless machine, or just buy a new one? So often it's the later.

The closed ecosystems that have sprung up thanks to the App Store have actually improved this, but still, in my experience, people tend to just buy something newer (and better) rather than deal with (and wait for) a repair.

I'm not claiming there would be no impact in legislating around this, but I believe it would be small, riddled with holes and problems, and that there are better approaches (to solving environment problems).

Just a wacky example but consider the following.

Manufactures typically design for a particular lifespan (such that no more than a certain % of devices would fail within a specified number of years). The idea is to reduce the amount of devices being trashed, so perhaps we could create tax incentives to encourage (a) longer life spans and (b) better recyclabiltiy.

[egeozcan]

> To begin with, 10 years is somewhat arbitrary. Why not 12? 15? 20?

I think the idea is great, filling your proposal with Xs ans Ys isn't. This is not code, it's a suggestion :)

[dwg]

Maybe I think too much like a programmer but then again I think maybe everyone else should think a little more like programmers too... especially legislators.