[_heimdall]

They weren't selling software licenses here, they were selling a very real piece of hardware. It would be ethical to disable noncritical software updates under some time based constraints, its completely unreasonably to disable the use of the hardware all together. The customer bought it, that's their hardware to use however they wish.

It would be completely unacceptable to me if an auto manufacturer baked in a time lock in a car I purchased. Heck, Apple got slapped for appearing to throttle performance based on age. Why is it reasonable for a train manufacturer to pull this stunt?

To be clear, plausible deniability is also a big gray area when it comes to moral or ethical questions. It a timelock in the software seems unusual, engineers aren't off the hook simply because they didn't ask. If they did push back or ask for an explanation and were given false answers, sure they likely didn't do anything most would consider immoral. But if they just wrote the time lock because it was in a spec and didn't ask why a train should include a time bomb? Totally unethical in my book.

[krisoft]

> They weren't selling software licenses here, they were selling a very real piece of hardware.

I don’t know. I didn’t read the contract. Neither did you I suspect nor did the developers.

Jet engines are leased by the hour. Yes they are very real pieces of hardware bolted to your airplane. That has nothing to do with the business model. Why can’t the same be true for trains?

Even if I would know how trains are usually sold/purchased, which I don’t, I could be convinced by a boss that we are trying a different model.

Why is this important? Two reasons: if your mental model is that these kind of things are done by “unethical developers” then you are not looking for the real culprits, and your interventions trying to prevent such things will be inefective.

[Eisenstein]

Do they turn off the jet engines if they don't pay, or do they send them a bill? There is a huge difference.

Also, writing it in a contract doesn't make it ethical or even legal. Just because someone writes it in a license agreement doesn't mean that we as a society should blindly accept it. We don't allow people to sell lots of things, why should we just say 'well it was in the license' because someone tried to sell 'being able to have turn off your own passenger train for more than 10 days'?

[krisoft]

> Just because someone writes it in a license agreement doesn't mean that we as a society should blindly accept it.

People who buy trainsets are sophisticated buyers. They have lawyers, accountants and engineers advising them. You don’t sucker a semi-senile grandma into buying your trains unseen. Nobody buys trains on a drunken dare, or as an impulse purchase.

Because of this, if the financing is more viable that way, companies should be able to purchase, rent or lease their trains under whatever model makes the most sense in their particular circumstances. This of course assumes that the manufacturer deals fairly and the purchaser is properly informed about what they are buying, leasing or renting. (Which does not seem to be the case here, and that is unethical and a problem. The kind where people should go to prison in my opinion.)

[TomaszZielinski]

I don't have anything substantial to add, but this got me:

> or as an impulse purchase.

as the whole case is about an Impuls purchase! :)

[klausa]

>Jet engines are leased by the hour.

I'm... very surprised by this, do you have any resources I could read about it?

[schiffern]

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12528/jet-engin...

https://www.sps-aviation.com/story/?id=2623&h=Engine-Leasing

The engines also have an always-on connection back to the mothership via satellite, eg:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2014/03/13/aircraft-...

[klausa]

Thank you for the links!

[TomaszZielinski]

This was very informative, thanks! It's so easy to assume a very simplified (or outright incorrect) model of how the world works and then point fingers in the wrong direction...

[roughly]

This is not an argument I necessarily believe, but to steel-man this one:

You know your trains will need service after 12 months in service or some number of miles. Absent that service, the train could fail, the failure could be catastrophic, and a catastrophic failure on a train kills people. You also know that municipal train operators in a great many parts of the world will absolutely run their trains until they kill someone rather than pay for downtime and maintenance. Therefore, you put in a lock on the train that if it hasn’t been serviced after 12 months, the train disables itself to force the owner to get the train serviced.

[p_l]

The background to this is European Union mandating unbundling of maintenance from purchase contracts.

Specifically, it's been no longer possible for manufacturers to claim that maintenance documentation is trqde secret or otherwise not possible to be made available to third parties, which opened the door for third party workshops to do deeper maintenance.

And the train manufacturer started losing tenders for maintenance.

[roughly]

Yeah, no part of the rest of this story suggests the charitable interpretation is the right one. I can see a case for being more aggressive about ensuring large machines get serviced before they can do harm, but I don’t actually think that’s what this company was doing.

[p_l]

It's part of their PR.

When original issues were big in media, they made PR campaign good other workshops were incompetent.

To compare in aviation terms, it was like plane manufacturer claiming Part 145 certified MRO with the necessary type certificates weren't good enough and you should only service at manufacturer - despite having outright bought the machine in total (no leasing)

[_heimdall]

Thank you for taking the time to steel-manning this one!

If this were the situation I would expect the train to show operators clear warning messages that service is due, and ultimately a message that says something to the affect of the train has been disabled or put into limp mode until it is serviced. I wouldn't expect these triggers to disable a train to only be discovered later when, for example, a train won't start without warning or stops running when its parked at a different shop to have the service done. I also would expect the service warnings to be based on something like hours of operation rather than calendar time, all heavy equipment I've ever heard of or worked on tracks service schedules this way.

This argument also gets to a more common trend we've had in recent decades where those with authority step on others freedoms because they believe they know better. Individuals should be able to make their own choices and be responsible for the consequences. In this case, the train operator should be aware if the service needs and risks if it is missed. If anything goes wrong they are responsible for it. Even if the triggers to disable the train were put in with the best of intentions, if I were the manufacturer I would worry that installing such a system could potentially put me entirely liable for anything that goes wrong.

[roughly]

> This argument also gets to a more common trend we've had in recent decades where those with authority step on others freedoms because they believe they know better. Individuals should be able to make their own choices and be responsible for the consequences. In this case, the train operator should be aware if the service needs and risks if it is missed. If anything goes wrong they are responsible for it. Even if the triggers to disable the train were put in with the best of intentions, if I were the manufacturer I would worry that installing such a system could potentially put me entirely liable for anything that goes wrong.

This, specifically, is the piece where I think there's some moral ambiguity, and specifically I do not think one has the moral ability to completely disavow the outcomes that the use or misuse of one's product causes, especially when they affect third parties. If you know that use of your product under certain circumstances will cause a large amount of harm to people other than the owner or operator, and you know those circumstances are likely, and you don't do anything to prevent that, I think you have some moral culpability. Whether or not you care is a different story, and this certainly isn't a legal argument, but I think you're responsible for the outcomes of the use of your labor and resources, especially when those are easily foreseeable. I think specifically in the case of selling a train to a municipal train operator - if I told you that the trains in Poland were known for derailing because the national train operations service was financially underwater and never repaired them, would that change your opinion? (It's not true, as far as I know, but would you find it surprising if it were?)

And, absolutely to your first point - if the goal of what you're doing is to prevent unsafe operation of your product in a situation where you legitimately believe it can cause grievous harm to third parties, then yes, you do all the things you say in paragraph one. That's why I'm saying I don't think that's what the train operator was doing, but I don't think the argument is totally cut and dry that the manufacturer has no moral right to stop the trains, and I don't buy the argument that the moment you sell the products of your labor to someone else you fully absolve yourself of the moral liability for the outcomes of the use of that product.

(And again, I'm repeatedly using the word "moral" in here, because this isn't a legal, statutory, or contractual argument, it's purely a moral one. I also recognize the world's a complicated place, we all have to make decisions in which there's not a clear good answer, and nobody lives a truly pure and moral life, so take this in the spirit of an old fashioned debate about how one can live one's best life, and not a specific condemnation or Twitter-esque outlining of what precisely a witch is while one gathers kindling.)

[chiggsy]

Or, you'd make sure that your liability was limited to one year, absent of any servicing. Maybe you'd have a renewable service contract, yearly, and one of the requirements is local inspection.

>force the owner to get the train serviced.

This is coercion, implemented via subterfuge. It's no different than if they sent guys with sacks full of door handles or whatever to take control of the trains, to accomplish the same result. Or if the client hired staff to crack the provider's server, and either installed ransomware, or stole the solution. Ridiculous. The way to operate is through the laws in question, rather than removing agency from the client.

If the client does not want to pay, you warn them of possible consequences, ask them if they would like to purchase an extra diagnostics package, and remind them that after a year, maintenance of the product is required to bring you back into the picture formally.

[duckmysick]

It should be the job of a rail or a transportation agency (like the FAA does with aviation). They should decide which trains operators can run which trains in a public space. If some of the operators are reckless with maintenance, they would lose the license to operate.

[p_l]

And in fact that's how it's (supposed to be) done.

With the maintenance and repair shops having railway equivalent of Part 145 certification, just without type ratings IIRC.

[TomaszZielinski]

I'm curious if the "12-month if-s" could activate in a running train. Hopefully not, but somehow I wouldn't be surprised...

[tasuki]

Not bad, can you steel man the geo fencing too?