This is an interesting perspective:
https://www.informal.cc/blog/prototype-to-production-electronics/?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=proto_to_production_electronics&utm_content=p2p_electronics&_kx=mkpjDC2H8kaIQo0Ct6qS9kUiPLgFQRqpceUMZbGzdW6G-XAC9SNTEL_th1pChwpJ.Tt32jT
This is an interesting perspective:
https://www.informal.cc/blog/prototype-to-production-electronics/?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=proto_to_production_electronics&utm_content=p2p_electronics&_kx=mkpjDC2H8kaIQo0Ct6qS9kUiPLgFQRqpceUMZbGzdW6G-XAC9SNTEL_th1pChwpJ.Tt32jT
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Marked separation between product development and manufacturing.
I guess if you don't actually 'make' anything any more, that this
is a common philosophy.
. . . . no actual customer either.
Marked separation between product development and manufacturing.
IME, most engineers are decoupled from manufacturing. Bigger
shops have "manufacturing engineers" who delight in denigrating
the "naive" design choices they made. Smaller shops just slap
together "modules" that someone else has sorted out how to
manufacture, economically (to some level of reliability).
I recall working on a design in the 1980 time frame where I
*really* wanted to put (thru-hole) components on the backside
of the board. My boss unilaterally ruled it out. He wanted
a larger board or a daughter board of comparable size.
So, I brought it up in a project meeting and the guy in charge of >manufacturing chimed in "Sure, I can do that! But, servicing will
be difficult..." "No problem as its an intentionally disposable unit!"
I guess if you don't actually 'make' anything any more, that this
is a common philosophy.
How often do you see a manufacturing line that does anything
more than assembly and final inspection, nowadays? Sheet
metal shop? Paint shop? Shake-n-Bake? Especially for any
significant *quantity*.
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 13:37:22 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
Marked separation between product development and manufacturing.
IME, most engineers are decoupled from manufacturing. Bigger
shops have "manufacturing engineers" who delight in denigrating
the "naive" design choices they made. Smaller shops just slap
together "modules" that someone else has sorted out how to
manufacture, economically (to some level of reliability).
I recall working on a design in the 1980 time frame where I
*really* wanted to put (thru-hole) components on the backside
of the board. My boss unilaterally ruled it out. He wanted
a larger board or a daughter board of comparable size.
So, I brought it up in a project meeting and the guy in charge of
manufacturing chimed in "Sure, I can do that! But, servicing will
be difficult..." "No problem as its an intentionally disposable unit!"
I guess if you don't actually 'make' anything any more, that this
is a common philosophy.
How often do you see a manufacturing line that does anything
more than assembly and final inspection, nowadays? Sheet
metal shop? Paint shop? Shake-n-Bake? Especially for any
significant *quantity*.
We have a full pick-and-place line, and a secondary selective solder
machine for thru-hole parts. And VOA and xray machines for inspection.
My manufacturing people don't mind putting parts on both sides. It
doesn't make testing difficult, especially if the bottom parts are
mostly passives, like bypass caps.
We never make prototypes. We design a thing and release all the
revision A drawings to manufacturing and they make a bunch of
first-article products, which we test. We expect some of those FAs to
be sellable.
That's why I find the attitude of iterating for years to be so weird.
If you assume that the first few designs will be defective, they will
be.
This is an interesting perspective:https://www.informal.cc/blog/prototype-to-production-electronics/?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=proto_to_production_electronics&utm_content=p2p_electronics&_kx=mkpjDC2H8kaIQo0Ct6qS9kUiPLgFQRqpceUMZbGzdW6G-XAC9SNTEL_th1pChwpJ.Tt32jTJohn LarkinHighland Tech Glen Canyon Design CenterLunatic Fringe Electronics
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> Wrote in message:r
This is an interesting perspective:https://www.informal.cc/blog/prototype-to-production-electronics/?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=proto_to_production_electronics&utm_content=p2p_electronics&_kx=mkpjDC2H8kaIQo0Ct6qS9kUiPLgFQRqpceUMZbGzdW6G-XAC9SNTEL_th1pChwpJ.Tt32jTJohn LarkinHighland Tech Glen Canyon Design CenterLunatic Fringe Electronics
They left out certification.
Cheers
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 10:30:44 -0400 (EDT), Martin Rid <martin_riddle@verison.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> Wrote in message:r
This is an interesting perspective:https://www.informal.cc/blog/prototype-to-production-electronics/?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=proto_to_production_electronics&utm_content=p2p_electronics&_kx=mkpjDC2H8kaIQo0Ct6qS9kUiPLgFQRqpceUMZbGzdW6G-XAC9SNTEL_th1pChwpJ.Tt32jTJohn LarkinHighland Tech Glen Canyon Design CenterLunatic Fringe Electronics
They left out certification.
Cheers
Good point. If a product needs certification, all that will need to be
redone every time the design is iterated. Yet more fun.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
At least for Part 15 unintentional radiators, since it's all SDoC anyway I think the question is more like what changes are you comfortable making post-
compliance testing, under the assumption that such changes won't materially change the validity of the test results backing up your self-declared conformity.
For the relatively simple designs I'm doing now (2-sided, 10 square inches, sub
20 MHz clocks) compliance testing is not an insubstantial part of the budget,
$2500 USA/Canada and another $3000 CE, so avoiding re-tests is nice, but the good news is there's only so many ways to revise a relatively simple design.
It's very unlikely the i2c bus layout or the clock frequency is going to substantially change soon, and all the parts should be available another 5-10
years at least.
Yeah changing some DC current sense resistor values or swapping the uP pins the
switches go to or something could change the EMI profile. So could looking at
it funny, phase of the moon, etc..
At least for Part 15 unintentional radiators, since it's all SDoC
anyway I think the question is more like what changes are you
comfortable making post- compliance testing, under the assumption that
such changes won't materially change the validity of the test results
backing up your self-declared conformity.
But, they change the product.˙ If your customer/client -- or a litigious actor -- opts to challenge those changes, you expose yourself to adverse outcomes.˙ You should be asking yourself "why do I think I *need* to make this change".˙ Esp as the folks making that determination may not be competent to understand the inconsequential nature of that change.
"Do you admit to making a change to the product after certification?"
˙˙ "Er, ... yes (as seen in the published/archived photos of the article) "Why do you think a 'snapshot' of the design is archived in that process? Obviously SOMETHING has changed else you wouldn't have altered the
product."
It's easier just to put testing where it belongs in the development
process -- at the end.˙ How confident would you be in a product that made
a few "insignificant" changes to its software AFTER testing/validation
was complete?
On 6/8/2026 5:38 PM, Don Y wrote:
At least for Part 15 unintentional radiators, since it's all SDoC anyway I >>> think the question is more like what changes are you comfortable making >>> post- compliance testing, under the assumption that such changes won't
materially change the validity of the test results backing up your self- >>> declared conformity.
But, they change the product.˙ If your customer/client -- or a litigious
actor -- opts to challenge those changes, you expose yourself to adverse
outcomes.˙ You should be asking yourself "why do I think I *need* to make
this change".˙ Esp as the folks making that determination may not be
competent to understand the inconsequential nature of that change.
"Do you admit to making a change to the product after certification?"
˙˙˙ "Er, ... yes (as seen in the published/archived photos of the article) >> "Why do you think a 'snapshot' of the design is archived in that process?
Obviously SOMETHING has changed else you wouldn't have altered the product."
What legal theory/tort is the hypothetical litigious actor proceeding under to
"challenge the changes" in court? The FCC handles FCC infractions, you can't sue somebody for "not being FCC compliant." Breach of contract? Unfair competition? False advertising? That I'm being a big jerk?
It's the hypothetical litigious actor's responsibility to obtain sufficient evidence of non-compliance and find an attorney willing to pursue a case, for
whatever that they can actually sue over, to whatever end. Sounds like it could
be expensive and time-consuming to even begin the process. What are they hoping
for, precisely? There's no guaranteed payday here.
I suppose a litigious actor with deep pockets could sue me right out of business if they were determined enough to clobber all competition but I figure
a litigious actor with deep pockets could likely always find an avenue to go about that, hunting for EMI violations from minor PCB revisions seems like a perverse way to go about it.
It's easier just to put testing where it belongs in the development
process -- at the end.˙ How confident would you be in a product that made
a few "insignificant" changes to its software AFTER testing/validation
was complete?
Literally every product that has upgradable firmware does this, all the time.
How confident I would be depends entirely on what changes were made. Send it out for re-testing every time the splash screen says "Good Morning, Dear User"But you don't KNOW what has been changed! You may not observe any changes
instead of just "Hello"??
On 6/8/2026 10:15 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/2026 5:38 PM, Don Y wrote:
At least for Part 15 unintentional radiators, since it's all SDoC
anyway I think the question is more like what changes are you
comfortable making post- compliance testing, under the assumption
that such changes won't materially change the validity of the test
results backing up your self- declared conformity.
But, they change the product.˙ If your customer/client -- or a litigious >>> actor -- opts to challenge those changes, you expose yourself to adverse >>> outcomes.˙ You should be asking yourself "why do I think I *need* to
make
this change".˙ Esp as the folks making that determination may not be
competent to understand the inconsequential nature of that change.
"Do you admit to making a change to the product after certification?"
˙˙˙ "Er, ... yes (as seen in the published/archived photos of the
article)
"Why do you think a 'snapshot' of the design is archived in that
process?
Obviously SOMETHING has changed else you wouldn't have altered the
product."
What legal theory/tort is the hypothetical litigious actor proceeding
under to "challenge the changes" in court? The FCC handles FCC
infractions, you can't sue somebody for "not being FCC compliant."
Breach of contract? Unfair competition? False advertising? That I'm
being a big jerk?
You took an action.˙ Doing so means you assume liability for that action.
All a lawyer has to do is convince some average joes that your action *caused* the problem and appeared to skirt a requirement.˙ What value certification if you can freely change a product and STILL claim it has
been
certified?
It's the hypothetical litigious actor's responsibility to obtain
sufficient evidence of non-compliance and find an attorney willing to
pursue a case, for whatever that they can actually sue over, to
whatever end. Sounds like it could be expensive and time-consuming to
even begin the process. What are they hoping for, precisely? There's
no guaranteed payday here.
You don't know what they will be claiming as injury.˙˙ "We bought 100 of these
devices.˙ Paid our staff to install them.˙ Then discovered a flaw in them that someone-who-will-testify-for-us claims could be the cause of the problem.
We want to be reimbursed for the items, the labor to install -- and uninstall
them, plus our inconvenience or possible lost business"
Regardless, being *named* in a lawsuit will likely cost you far more than
the $2500 (you're trying to avoid) to respond.
I suppose a litigious actor with deep pockets could sue me right out
of business if they were determined enough to clobber all competition
but I figure a litigious actor with deep pockets could likely always
find an avenue to go about that, hunting for EMI violations from minor
PCB revisions seems like a perverse way to go about it.
*They* are the ones who make that calculation, not you.˙ And, THEY are
the ones
who determine what it has cost THEM to handle your botch.
Early in my career, I designed a medical device.˙ DM+DL was in the $400 range.˙ Firmware updates required swapping ROMs.˙ A trip "into town"
to service a unit would cost the client $600.˙ I'm sure he could
PROVE these costs.˙ Do I want to be on the hook for $600+ for each
firmware upgrade he undertakes to fix something I've done wrong?
So, I *lose* $200 for every unit sold??
It's easier just to put testing where it belongs in the development
process -- at the end.˙ How confident would you be in a product that
made
a few "insignificant" changes to its software AFTER testing/validation
was complete?
Literally every product that has upgradable firmware does this, all
the time.
No, the assumption is that the product WAS tested prior to the
upgrade being rolled out.˙ How *effective* that testing is will vary
with the complexity of the product.
How confident I would be depends entirely on what changes were made.But you don't KNOW what has been changed!˙ You may not observe any changes and yet know it's not the same product as "yesterday".
Send it out for re-testing every time the splash screen says "Good
Morning, Dear User" instead of just "Hello"??
"Little changes" often aren't.˙ I've met many developers who have a tale
of some "simple change" that bit them in the ass, disproportionately.
Again, "WHY make the change" is the operative issue.˙ IMO, everyone
should have
some experience working in industries that eschew changes and/or make them very expensive to implement.˙ When its an effort to make a change, you
think really hard about WHY you are making it.
[My current project avoids online updates.˙ Updates require physical
devices to be mailed to the user and installed by the user.˙ This
adds to the TCO and the perceived stability of the system ("We just had
an update last month...")]
Datron made a very nice DVM called the 1061A.˙ They also made a 1061.Yes. There are many industries with explicit or implicit
When I asked their rep why they sold both versions he explained that
the A version had a bug fixed and a few small improvements.
However, some big military customers had qualified the 1061 for their applications and did not want to have the substantial expense of
requalifying the meter.˙ They preferred to live with the known
bug rather than have any uncertainty associated with the upgrade.
Everyone else preferred to have the better model.
So they made both.
On 6/8/2026 10:15 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/2026 5:38 PM, Don Y wrote:
At least for Part 15 unintentional radiators, since it's all SDoC
anyway I think the question is more like what changes are you
comfortable making post- compliance testing, under the assumption
that such changes won't materially change the validity of the test
results backing up your self- declared conformity.
But, they change the product.˙ If your customer/client -- or a litigious >>> actor -- opts to challenge those changes, you expose yourself to adverse >>> outcomes.˙ You should be asking yourself "why do I think I *need* to
make
this change".˙ Esp as the folks making that determination may not be
competent to understand the inconsequential nature of that change.
"Do you admit to making a change to the product after certification?"
˙˙˙ "Er, ... yes (as seen in the published/archived photos of the
article)
"Why do you think a 'snapshot' of the design is archived in that
process?
Obviously SOMETHING has changed else you wouldn't have altered the
product."
What legal theory/tort is the hypothetical litigious actor proceeding
under to "challenge the changes" in court? The FCC handles FCC
infractions, you can't sue somebody for "not being FCC compliant."
Breach of contract? Unfair competition? False advertising? That I'm
being a big jerk?
You took an action.˙ Doing so means you assume liability for that action.
All a lawyer has to do is convince some average joes that your action *caused* the problem and appeared to skirt a requirement.˙ What value certification if you can freely change a product and STILL claim it has
been
certified?
It's the hypothetical litigious actor's responsibility to obtain
sufficient evidence of non-compliance and find an attorney willing to
pursue a case, for whatever that they can actually sue over, to
whatever end. Sounds like it could be expensive and time-consuming to
even begin the process. What are they hoping for, precisely? There's
no guaranteed payday here.
You don't know what they will be claiming as injury.˙˙ "We bought 100 of these
devices.˙ Paid our staff to install them.˙ Then discovered a flaw in them that someone-who-will-testify-for-us claims could be the cause of the problem.
We want to be reimbursed for the items, the labor to install -- and uninstall
them, plus our inconvenience or possible lost business"
Regardless, being *named* in a lawsuit will likely cost you far more than
the $2500 (you're trying to avoid) to respond.
I suppose a litigious actor with deep pockets could sue me right out
of business if they were determined enough to clobber all competition
but I figure a litigious actor with deep pockets could likely always
find an avenue to go about that, hunting for EMI violations from minor
PCB revisions seems like a perverse way to go about it.
*They* are the ones who make that calculation, not you.˙ And, THEY are
the ones
who determine what it has cost THEM to handle your botch.
Early in my career, I designed a medical device.˙ DM+DL was in the $400 range.˙ Firmware updates required swapping ROMs.˙ A trip "into town"
to service a unit would cost the client $600.˙ I'm sure he could
PROVE these costs.˙ Do I want to be on the hook for $600+ for each
firmware upgrade he undertakes to fix something I've done wrong?
So, I *lose* $200 for every unit sold??
It's easier just to put testing where it belongs in the development
process -- at the end.˙ How confident would you be in a product that
made
a few "insignificant" changes to its software AFTER testing/validation
was complete?
Literally every product that has upgradable firmware does this, all
the time.
No, the assumption is that the product WAS tested prior to the
upgrade being rolled out.˙ How *effective* that testing is will vary
with the complexity of the product.
How confident I would be depends entirely on what changes were made.But you don't KNOW what has been changed!˙ You may not observe any changes and yet know it's not the same product as "yesterday".
Send it out for re-testing every time the splash screen says "Good
Morning, Dear User" instead of just "Hello"??
"Little changes" often aren't.˙ I've met many developers who have a tale
of some "simple change" that bit them in the ass, disproportionately.
Again, "WHY make the change" is the operative issue.˙ IMO, everyone
should have
some experience working in industries that eschew changes and/or make them very expensive to implement.˙ When its an effort to make a change, you
think really hard about WHY you are making it.
[My current project avoids online updates.˙ Updates require physical
devices to be mailed to the user and installed by the user.˙ This
adds to the TCO and the perceived stability of the system ("We just had
an update last month...")]
On 6/9/2026 12:04 AM, John R Walliker wrote:
Datron made a very nice DVM called the 1061A.˙ They also made a 1061.Yes.˙ There are many industries with explicit or implicit
When I asked their rep why they sold both versions he explained that
the A version had a bug fixed and a few small improvements.
However, some big military customers had qualified the 1061 for their
applications and did not want to have the substantial expense of
requalifying the meter.˙ They preferred to live with the known
bug rather than have any uncertainty associated with the upgrade.
Everyone else preferred to have the better model.
So they made both.
regulatory requirements where change is discouraged and
any known change has to be carefully qualified.
Aero/astro, defense, medical/pharma, gaming and, lately,
automotive are good examples.˙ "New and improved" arent
things they look for!
I keep entire development environments (OS, toolchain,
source code, etc.) for every project I've designed.
I *need* to be able to reproduce an exact copy of the
*binary* that was shipped in a product, not just the
sources backing that.˙ So, if commissioned to make
a change, the *exact* change can be examined all the way
down INTO the released product.
I was tasked with making some changes to a grey-area gaming
device many years ago.˙ In the process, I discovered that
the original design had made some errors in the probability
computations.
In theory, certain types of wagers would produce BETTER outcomes
(for the bettor) than strictly expected.˙ Of course, the only
way for a user to know this would be to make lots of wagers
and compare expected outcomes with actual before the
discrepancy would be noticeable.
In a *regulated* market, this would have been a serious
problem as it indicates the prior implementation was
not a "fair" game.˙ (laws mandate this)˙ But, as it
was a grey market, the change could be introduced without
any practical consequences.
In a *regulated* market, this would have been a serious
problem as it indicates the prior implementation was
not a "fair" game.˙ (laws mandate this)˙ But, as it
was a grey market, the change could be introduced without
any practical consequences.
Yeah I'm definitely not reporting any "errors" I find in the probability calculations of some Mafia-designed gaming machines to anyone, if that's not part of my job description, lol..
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 13:37:22 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
Marked separation between product development and manufacturing.
IME, most engineers are decoupled from manufacturing. Bigger
shops have "manufacturing engineers" who delight in denigrating
the "naive" design choices they made. Smaller shops just slap
together "modules" that someone else has sorted out how to
manufacture, economically (to some level of reliability).
I recall working on a design in the 1980 time frame where I
*really* wanted to put (thru-hole) components on the backside
of the board. My boss unilaterally ruled it out. He wanted
a larger board or a daughter board of comparable size.
So, I brought it up in a project meeting and the guy in charge of
manufacturing chimed in "Sure, I can do that! But, servicing will
be difficult..." "No problem as its an intentionally disposable unit!"
I guess if you don't actually 'make' anything any more, that this
is a common philosophy.
How often do you see a manufacturing line that does anything
more than assembly and final inspection, nowadays? Sheet
metal shop? Paint shop? Shake-n-Bake? Especially for any
significant *quantity*.
We have a full pick-and-place line, and a secondary selective solder
machine for thru-hole parts. And VOA and xray machines for inspection.
My manufacturing people don't mind putting parts on both sides. It
doesn't make testing difficult, especially if the bottom parts are
mostly passives, like bypass caps.
We never make prototypes. We design a thing and release all the
revision A drawings to manufacturing and they make a bunch of
first-article products, which we test. We expect some of those FAs to
be sellable.
That's why I find the attitude of iterating for years to be so weird.
If you assume that the first few designs will be defective, they will
be.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
What legal theory/tort is the hypothetical litigious actor proceeding under
to "challenge the changes" in court? The FCC handles FCC infractions, you >>> can't sue somebody for "not being FCC compliant." Breach of contract? Unfair
competition? False advertising? That I'm being a big jerk?
You took an action.˙ Doing so means you assume liability for that action.
All a lawyer has to do is convince some average joes that your action
*caused* the problem and appeared to skirt a requirement.˙ What value
certification if you can freely change a product and STILL claim it has been >> certified?
You can't _freely_ change a product, because then you're acting negligently. I
think the value of certification is it's a part of how you would demonstrate to
relevant parties that you're making a best-faith effort at not designing products negligently which shit up the spectrum with EMI.I don't believe it was
intended to be a formal statement of God's truth on the matter.
It's the hypothetical litigious actor's responsibility to obtain sufficient
evidence of non-compliance and find an attorney willing to pursue a case, >>> for whatever that they can actually sue over, to whatever end. Sounds like >>> it could be expensive and time-consuming to even begin the process. What are
they hoping for, precisely? There's no guaranteed payday here.
You don't know what they will be claiming as injury.˙˙ "We bought 100 of these
devices.˙ Paid our staff to install them.˙ Then discovered a flaw in them
that someone-who-will-testify-for-us claims could be the cause of the problem.
We want to be reimbursed for the items, the labor to install -- and uninstall
them, plus our inconvenience or possible lost business"
Yep, anyone can try to sue you for anything at any time and claim any injury they like. The burden of of proof for damages tends to be negligence, not "the
manufacturer had in place generally reasonable engineering practices but yet made an error regardless." You have to determine what a reasonable standard is
for your industry and design.
But you act like re-testing after every change, is some iron-clad defense against disgruntled customers, is it? Why should they even believe what _my_ test reports say about anything, anyway? I'm the one paying the lab after all.
IIRC FCC unintentional radiator requirements don't even require a lab be accredited..
Regardless, being *named* in a lawsuit will likely cost you far more than
the $2500 (you're trying to avoid) to respond.
Making a revision utilizing sound engineering judgement and documented rationales which then results in some bizarre chain of causality which results
in a substantial lawsuit because the massive EMI from a formerly compliant product caused substantial damages I think is why we have product insurance and
LLCs, I'm not convinced these worst-case scenarios can ever be entirely mitigated at the design level. You pays your money and you takes your chances
in life.
I suppose a litigious actor with deep pockets could sue me right out of >>> business if they were determined enough to clobber all competition but I >>> figure a litigious actor with deep pockets could likely always find an
avenue to go about that, hunting for EMI violations from minor PCB revisions
seems like a perverse way to go about it.
*They* are the ones who make that calculation, not you.˙ And, THEY are the ones
who determine what it has cost THEM to handle your botch.
It's unclear who "they" is here, I'm talking about a competitor. Why would my
botch cost them anything to "handle."
It's easier just to put testing where it belongs in the development
process -- at the end.˙ How confident would you be in a product that made >>>> a few "insignificant" changes to its software AFTER testing/validation >>>> was complete?
Literally every product that has upgradable firmware does this, all the time.
No, the assumption is that the product WAS tested prior to the
upgrade being rolled out.˙ How *effective* that testing is will vary
with the complexity of the product.
Someone assumes that my e.g. TV manufacturer sends the mainboard out to an anechoic chamber for comprehensive EMi profiling every time they roll out a firmware upgrade, which is like every week? Who assumes this??? I definitely don't assume that.
How confident I would be depends entirely on what changes were made. Send itBut you don't KNOW what has been changed!˙ You may not observe any changes >> and yet know it's not the same product as "yesterday".
out for re-testing every time the splash screen says "Good Morning, Dear >>> User" instead of just "Hello"??
"Little changes" often aren't.˙ I've met many developers who have a tale
of some "simple change" that bit them in the ass, disproportionately.
Well, certainly be more vague.
On 6/9/2026 9:11 AM, bitrex wrote:
What legal theory/tort is the hypothetical litigious actor
proceeding under to "challenge the changes" in court? The FCC
handles FCC infractions, you can't sue somebody for "not being FCC
compliant." Breach of contract? Unfair competition? False
advertising? That I'm being a big jerk?
You took an action.˙ Doing so means you assume liability for that
action.
All a lawyer has to do is convince some average joes that your action
*caused* the problem and appeared to skirt a requirement.˙ What value
certification if you can freely change a product and STILL claim it
has been
certified?
You can't _freely_ change a product, because then you're acting
negligently. I
So, your argument is that it was good enough to pass certification...
but you FREELY CHOSE to change it?
think the value of certification is it's a part of how you would
demonstrate to relevant parties that you're making a best-faith effort
at not designing products negligently which shit up the spectrum with
EMI.I don't believe it was intended to be a formal statement of God's
truth on the matter.
You're focusing on the certification as the issue that would be challenged
in a lawsuit.˙ It can STILL pass certification -- possibly with even an cleaner spectrum (in the case of emissions).
But, you made *a* change and the plaintiff claims harm as a result.
"Why didn't you leave it the way it was?"
And, as a result, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, police, etc. should
all have immunity based on THEIR self-assessment of their products?
Welcome to the real world!
So, you want to spend those monies in a manner that gives you the most bang for your buck, right?
I'm sure you can argue that a design hasn't changed "substantially"
some months and number of iterations after a particular point in
its development.˙ So, why not get the certification out of the way ASAP? After all, *you* are convinced that all of the "improvements" thereafter won't affect THAT aspect of its performance.
Do you think an attorney wouldn't get you to concede that such
an impact is POSSIBLE?˙ And, the other party has a DEMONSTRABLE
loss?
Someone assumes that my e.g. TV manufacturer sends the mainboard out
to an anechoic chamber for comprehensive EMi profiling every time they
roll out a firmware upgrade, which is like every week? Who assumes
this??? I definitely don't assume that.
They likely have those facilities in house.˙ And.or experience with tens of thousands of units on which to base their assumptions.
How confident I would be depends entirely on what changes were made.But you don't KNOW what has been changed!˙ You may not observe any
Send it out for re-testing every time the splash screen says "Good
Morning, Dear User" instead of just "Hello"??
changes
and yet know it's not the same product as "yesterday".
"Little changes" often aren't.˙ I've met many developers who have a tale >>> of some "simple change" that bit them in the ass, disproportionately.
Well, certainly be more vague.
If you've not heard such tales, then you must have a very small set
of colleagues willing to share details of their experiences with you.
Regardless, I "lost" a day of my time to a problem that I
had already "solved" -- because a manufacturer thought it
acceptable to change THEIR product without changing a part
number, product name, etc. in a way that would allow buyers
to determine if they were purchasing the same product.
On 6/9/2026 4:39 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 6/9/2026 9:11 AM, bitrex wrote:
What legal theory/tort is the hypothetical litigious actor proceeding >>>>> under to "challenge the changes" in court? The FCC handles FCC
infractions, you can't sue somebody for "not being FCC compliant." Breach
of contract? Unfair competition? False advertising? That I'm being a big >>>>> jerk?
You took an action.˙ Doing so means you assume liability for that action. >>>> All a lawyer has to do is convince some average joes that your action
*caused* the problem and appeared to skirt a requirement.˙ What value
certification if you can freely change a product and STILL claim it has been
certified?
You can't _freely_ change a product, because then you're acting negligently. I
So, your argument is that it was good enough to pass certification...
but you FREELY CHOSE to change it?
If a design revision is flunking EMI testing then there doesn't seem much point
in producing that particular revision in any significant quantity to distribute
to beta testers/early adopters, to find out if they like the front panel LEDs
better in amber or white, is there.
Compliance testing isn't market testing/user testing, and my reading of the law
is that by distributing any number of boards/units that haven't had due diligence done on the SDoC by having the EMI testing done is already violation
of the law.
Even for a relatively simple product like say a novelty butthole simulator (not
for medical use), if it's got a uP it's the better part of $10,000 every time
said hypothetical company makes a change if they do it your way, and they want
to sell worldwide, including to those EU bastards and get their "Can't Enforce"
sticker on the up-and-up.
So what happens when an early adopter/beta tester notices a hardware and/or firmware bug, do we fix it now, 6 months from now? OK we wait a while to see if
any other reports come in and they don't, so we patch the bug and spend $10,000
and re-test. But crap, someone finds another issue that can only be changed by
swapping some resistors the week after.
So you the financial advisor in this hypothetical here DonY, as a manufacturer
of novelty butt hole stimulators what do we do in this situation. $10,000 might
represent 1/4th or 1/2 of a year's net on a product like that, so before answering note that "just lose money" and "always release perfect designs" are
not acceptable answers.
Simply ignoring user feedback isn't really a viable answer either cuz then they
blast you on Yelp and buy someone else's stimulator, who's more responsive to
user feedback.
think the value of certification is it's a part of how you would demonstrate
to relevant parties that you're making a best-faith effort at not designing
products negligently which shit up the spectrum with EMI.I don't believe it
was intended to be a formal statement of God's truth on the matter.
You're focusing on the certification as the issue that would be challenged >> in a lawsuit.˙ It can STILL pass certification -- possibly with even an
cleaner spectrum (in the case of emissions).
But, you made *a* change and the plaintiff claims harm as a result.
"Why didn't you leave it the way it was?"
I don't remember putting guarantees that a particular product revision is suitable for any particular purpose in the EULA or sales agreement.
If you designed your life around your favorite e-cigarette model having amber
lights on the side and then they change the design so the lights are white and
that's the only kind you can get, now, then that's on you.
And, as a result, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, police, etc. should
all have immunity based on THEIR self-assessment of their products?
Welcome to the real world!
Heh, have you ever tried to sue a doctor, police force, or pharmaceutical company for an injury?
People die every day from doctor's bad judgement who might have lived if they'd
been under the care of a better doctor or admitted to a better hospital. It's
rarely malpractice/negligence and "failure to diagnose" cases tend to be hard
for a plaintiff.˙ "We tried to follow best standards and practices to the best
of our abilities."
Doctors make errors in judgement sometimes, and sometimes people die from that.
The fact that such errors sometimes occur is not intrinsically litigable.
As for police, well, everyone knows how police operate in the US. They'll kill
you in cold blood and probably get a promotion. Some citizens are more happy about that than others.
So, you want to spend those monies in a manner that gives you the most bang >> for your buck, right?
I'm sure you can argue that a design hasn't changed "substantially"
some months and number of iterations after a particular point in
its development.˙ So, why not get the certification out of the way ASAP?
After all, *you* are convinced that all of the "improvements" thereafter
won't affect THAT aspect of its performance.
Do you think an attorney wouldn't get you to concede that such
an impact is POSSIBLE?˙ And, the other party has a DEMONSTRABLE
loss?
I don't think what an attorney gets me to concede is possible is as relevant in
civil law, it's not an episode of Perry Mason where all he has to do is instill
reasonable doubt. The plaintiff has to demonstrate to a high standard how I was
primarily responsible for their loss and how my negligence lead to it, how does
me conceding something is possible help. Sure, anything is possible.
Someone assumes that my e.g. TV manufacturer sends the mainboard out to an >>> anechoic chamber for comprehensive EMi profiling every time they roll out a
firmware upgrade, which is like every week? Who assumes this??? I definitely
don't assume that.
They likely have those facilities in house.˙ And.or experience with tens of >> thousands of units on which to base their assumptions.
Okie dokie.
Regardless, I "lost" a day of my time to a problem that I
had already "solved" -- because a manufacturer thought it
acceptable to change THEIR product without changing a part
number, product name, etc. in a way that would allow buyers
to determine if they were purchasing the same product.
OK but how much money did you get out of the manufacturer for it? Did they ever
give you a promise they were never gonna change anything about the design?
So, you're just a lousy designer.˙ Maybe basket weaving would be
something more
suited to your "each one is different" approach to your market.
Ever been in a real factory?˙ Not a garage shop that turns out hobbyist kit but something that makes televisions?˙ Automobiles?˙ Ball bearings?˙ Hand tools?
It's not some guy tinkering in a corner.
On 6/10/2026 4:28 AM, Don Y wrote:
So, you're just a lousy designer.˙ Maybe basket weaving would be something more
suited to your "each one is different" approach to your market.
It takes you a lot of words to get to the crux of your argument. If I were to
redesign you I would make it so you used less words to get to the point. There
it is! Finally..
I was glad to hear your perspective, though, it differs from a number of the other tech people I've talked with who said startups should consider just ignoring getting small runs of new products certified entirely, given that the
average FCC fine costs about as much as the certs do...and that was back when
we had an FCC who vaguely gave a shit.My bad for making a best-faith effort to
comply with the law, I guess.
Ever been in a real factory?˙ Not a garage shop that turns out hobbyist kit >> but something that makes televisions?˙ Automobiles?˙ Ball bearings?˙ Hand
tools?
No I've never been to China.
It's not some guy tinkering in a corner.
As far as I can tell from your posts that's precisely what someone might consider _you_ at this time as well, Mr. Pot/Kettle! That you feel a need to keep a server farm in your residence doesn't change this.
Rather like domestic TV manufacturing your factory QA days are long gone.
Did I claim they were "recent"?˙ WHEN were yours?˙ When have you worked
in a factory?˙ Or, in a disciplined environment where HOW you did your
job was as important as the job itself?
There are few constraints on weaving baskets...
On 6/10/2026 4:28 PM, Don Y wrote:
Did I claim they were "recent"?˙ WHEN were yours?˙ When have you worked
in a factory?˙ Or, in a disciplined environment where HOW you did your
job was as important as the job itself?
There are few constraints on weaving baskets...
You tell me they retest after every firmware revision and then you walk it back
and shift the goalpost and are like: "well maybe they retest, or maybe they just know their product real good."
Since you don't know perhaps you could point me in the direction of somebody who actually knows the fucking answer.
On 6/10/2026 2:49 PM, bitrex wrote:I'm not really in favor of the "everyone else thinks really hard but Bitrex"-theory. If I didn't think about things we wouldn't be having the discussion.
On 6/10/2026 4:28 PM, Don Y wrote:
Did I claim they were "recent"?˙ WHEN were yours?˙ When have you worked
in a factory?˙ Or, in a disciplined environment where HOW you did your
job was as important as the job itself?
There are few constraints on weaving baskets...
You tell me they retest after every firmware revision and then you
walk it back and shift the goalpost and are like: "well maybe they
retest, or maybe they just know their product real good."
Because there are costs to changing firmware and recertification (which can include far more costly efforts than something as simple as FCC
compliance),
they think REALLY REALLY hard before they make a casual change (like the ones
you seem to enjoy making)
Walk into a casino and tell them you want to replace the software in even
ONE of their slot machines...
Tell the guy on the tableting floor in the pharmaceutical FACTORY that
you want to change the control algorithm for the tablet press that will
be cranking out a few million Viagra tablets, today...
Tell the doctor operating the DaVinci robot...
Tell the guy installing the avionics package in the jumbo jet...
You know, people who actually CARE about the quality and reliability of their
products because there are REAL stakes involved!˙ (not just the color of an LED indicator)
But, hey, it's YOUR name that's on the package, right?˙ So, if you have
that little concern over YOUR business reputation...
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: |-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"And, as a result, doctors, [. . .], police, etc. should |
|all have immunity based on THEIR self-assessment of their products?| |Welcome to the real world!" | |-------------------------------------------------------------------|
Medics and polices are effectively (though not legally) immune.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"I was asked to build a "computer lab" for disadvantaged students."| |-------------------------------------------------------------------|
I admire you for being charitable!
On 6/10/2026 3:37 PM, Niocl s P˘l Caile n de Ghloucester wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"And, as a result, doctors, [. . .], police, etc. should˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ |
|all have immunity based on THEIR self-assessment of their products?|
|Welcome to the real world!"˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
Medics and polices are effectively (though not legally) immune.
That doesn't prevent them from being named in a lawsuit.˙ And, if
"expenses" are your concern, you'll note they all pay a hefty
bit (in perpetuity) for insurance!
[Further, they are typically on-the-hook for errors committed by
their staff, in their name.]
On 6/10/2026 4:37 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 6/10/2026 3:37 PM, Niocl s P˘l Caile n de Ghloucester wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"And, as a result, doctors, [. . .], police, etc. should˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ |
|all have immunity based on THEIR self-assessment of their products?|
|Welcome to the real world!"˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
Medics and polices are effectively (though not legally) immune.
That doesn't prevent them from being named in a lawsuit.˙ And, if
"expenses" are your concern, you'll note they all pay a hefty
bit (in perpetuity) for insurance!
[Further, they are typically on-the-hook for errors committed by
their staff, in their name.]
Imagine a new doctor, just starting out, deciding he didn't need
malpractice insurance, an office staff, someone to "code" insurance
claims, a lawyer, accountant, etc. BECAUSE HE COULDN'T AFFORD THEM.
Yeah, we should have a fast track for such folks to encourage them
to get into medicine!˙ (with a big sticker they could put on their
office door:˙ "Caution:˙ Student driver")
On 6/9/2026 9:21 AM, bitrex wrote:
In a *regulated* market, this would have been a serious
problem as it indicates the prior implementation was
not a "fair" game.˙ (laws mandate this)˙ But, as it
was a grey market, the change could be introduced without
any practical consequences.
Yeah I'm definitely not reporting any "errors" I find in the
probability calculations of some Mafia-designed gaming machines to
anyone, if that's not part of my job description, lol..
Gaming devices aren't "mafia designed".˙ And, in regulated industry are highly controlled, tested and ethical.˙ Remember, a flaw in a dweisgn
can just as easily be used to screw over the party *operating* the
device.
This is what typical gamblers fail to understand in thier thinking that
they have a "system" enabling them to win:˙ if the game wasn't "fair"
(i.e., had some exploit that could be abused), then no one would
want to operate *or* play it.
Games are profitable for their operators because gamblers can't
"walk away" -- even after a net gain.
On 6/9/2026 3:11 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 6/9/2026 9:21 AM, bitrex wrote:
Gaming devices aren't "mafia designed".˙ And, in regulated industry are
highly controlled, tested and ethical.˙ Remember, a flaw in a dweisgn
can just as easily be used to screw over the party *operating* the
device.
This is what typical gamblers fail to understand in thier thinking that
they have a "system" enabling them to win:˙ if the game wasn't "fair"
(i.e., had some exploit that could be abused), then no one would
want to operate *or* play it.
Games are profitable for their operators because gamblers can't
"walk away" -- even after a net gain.
You work on some Mafia-ass rigged gaming machines designed to rip off the poor
and ignorant at gas stations. Don't ever lecture me about a moral compass, yours is far gone.
Face it, you are underfunded. 90% of startups fail. Did you research what your costs would LIKELY be before you set off on your own? Did you TALKBecause there are costs to changing firmware and recertification (which can >> include far more costly efforts than something as simple as FCC compliance), >> they think REALLY REALLY hard before they make a casual change (like the onesI'm not really in favor of the "everyone else thinks really hard but Bitrex"-
you seem to enjoy making)
theory. If I didn't think about things we wouldn't be having the discussion.
On 6/10/2026 7:47 PM, Don Y wrote:Designing custom devices (hardware, software, documentation) for VC-backed developers. Lots of pressure to succeed when the VC only typically sees a
Imagine a new doctor, just starting out, deciding he didn't need
malpractice insurance, an office staff, someone to "code" insurance
claims, a lawyer, accountant, etc. BECAUSE HE COULDN'T AFFORD THEM.
What business did you do so well for yourself in, the straw man business?
On 6/10/2026 6:17 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/2026 3:11 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 6/9/2026 9:21 AM, bitrex wrote:
Gaming devices aren't "mafia designed".˙ And, in regulated industry are
highly controlled, tested and ethical.˙ Remember, a flaw in a dweisgn
can just as easily be used to screw over the party *operating* the
device.
This is what typical gamblers fail to understand in thier thinking that
they have a "system" enabling them to win:˙ if the game wasn't "fair"
(i.e., had some exploit that could be abused), then no one would
want to operate *or* play it.
Games are profitable for their operators because gamblers can't
"walk away" -- even after a net gain.
You work on some Mafia-ass rigged gaming machines designed to rip off
the poor
And the local Elks Club or Knights of Columbus -- we all know those folks
are the dregs of society to even entertain "gambling" (with their families' monies) or drinking "on club time"!˙ Or, the poker games in the various "political clubs".˙ Lets outlaw playing cards.˙ And, bocce should be a felony!
Billiard tables.˙ On-line gambling.˙ Prediction markets.
and ignorant at gas stations. Don't ever lecture me about a moral
compass, yours is far gone.
You really don't understand the grey market, do you?˙ Gas stations tend
to sell LOTTERY TICKETS.˙ That amoral government that relies on
exploiting the hopes of its citizenry.
I also work on pharmaceutical products so guys can "get it up",
people can survive cancer, anitbiotics can cure infections,
labs can track patient blood samples, fishermen can improve their
harvests, etc.
And you work on music kit for "drugged out" musicians?˙ Dopers?˙ Really?
I guess you're the morality police in your side job?˙ (I guess SOMETHING
has got to pay the bills!)
On 6/10/2026 5:08 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/10/2026 7:47 PM, Don Y wrote:Designing custom devices (hardware, software, documentation) for VC-backed developers.˙ Lots of pressure to succeed when the VC only typically sees a 10% success rate!˙ (No, there's no money to do it OVER!˙ Or, deliver updates.)
Imagine a new doctor, just starting out, deciding he didn't need
malpractice insurance, an office staff, someone to "code" insurance
claims, a lawyer, accountant, etc. BECAUSE HE COULDN'T AFFORD THEM.
What business did you do so well for yourself in, the straw man business?
On 6/10/2026 3:44 PM, bitrex wrote:
Face it, you are underfunded.˙ 90% of startups fail.˙ Did you research what your costs would LIKELY be before you set off on your own?˙ Did you TALKBecause there are costs to changing firmware and recertificationI'm not really in favor of the "everyone else thinks really hard but
(which can
include far more costly efforts than something as simple as FCC
compliance),
they think REALLY REALLY hard before they make a casual change (like
the ones
you seem to enjoy making)
Bitrex"- theory. If I didn't think about things we wouldn't be having
the discussion.
to people who had attempted similar acts?˙ Did they tell you that it
takes far more money than you anticipate??
I budgeted 500K for a single prototype with DM+DL at about 40K.
More than 200K of that is for certifications so houses don't
burn down or neighbors lose their TV/cell reception.
And, I've got another 500K waiting behind that for any contingencies that
I failed to anticipate.
And I'm not planning on selling any devices!
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>wrote:
On 6/10/2026 2:49 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/10/2026 4:28 PM, Don Y wrote:
Did I claim they were "recent"?˙ WHEN were yours?˙ When have you worked
in a factory?˙ Or, in a disciplined environment where HOW you did your
job was as important as the job itself?
There are few constraints on weaving baskets...
You tell me they retest after every firmware revision and then you walk it back
and shift the goalpost and are like: "well maybe they retest, or maybe they >> just know their product real good."
Because there are costs to changing firmware and recertification (which can >include far more costly efforts than something as simple as FCC compliance), >they think REALLY REALLY hard before they make a casual change (like the ones >you seem to enjoy making).
Walk into a casino and tell them you want to replace the software in even
ONE of their slot machines...
Tell the guy on the tableting floor in the pharmaceutical FACTORY that
you want to change the control algorithm for the tablet press that will
be cranking out a few million Viagra tablets, today...
Tell the doctor operating the DaVinci robot...
Tell the guy installing the avionics package in the jumbo jet...
You know, people who actually CARE about the quality and reliability of their >products because there are REAL stakes involved! (not just the color of an >LED indicator)
But, hey, it's YOUR name that's on the package, right? So, if you have
that little concern over YOUR business reputation...
Since you don't know perhaps you could point me in the direction of somebody
who actually knows the fucking answer.
You really don't understand the grey market, do you?˙ Gas stations tend
to sell LOTTERY TICKETS.˙ That amoral government that relies on
exploiting the hopes of its citizenry.
I also work on pharmaceutical products so guys can "get it up",
people can survive cancer, anitbiotics can cure infections,
labs can track patient blood samples, fishermen can improve their
harvests, etc.
And you work on music kit for "drugged out" musicians?˙ Dopers?˙ Really?
I guess you're the morality police in your side job?˙ (I guess SOMETHING
has got to pay the bills!)
The connection between grey-area/unregulated gambling and organized crime is well established.
On 6/10/2026 11:33 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 6/10/2026 5:08 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/10/2026 7:47 PM, Don Y wrote:
Imagine a new doctor, just starting out, deciding he didn't need
malpractice insurance, an office staff, someone to "code" insurance
claims, a lawyer, accountant, etc. BECAUSE HE COULDN'T AFFORD THEM.
What business did you do so well for yourself in, the straw man business? >> Designing custom devices (hardware, software, documentation) for VC-backed >> developers.˙ Lots of pressure to succeed when the VC only typically sees a >> 10% success rate!˙ (No, there's no money to do it OVER!˙ Or, deliver updates.)
Ya letting someone else take the risk while you cash the checks sounds like good work, if you can get it.
On 6/10/2026 11:32 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 6/10/2026 3:44 PM, bitrex wrote:
I budgeted 500K for a single prototype with DM+DL at about 40K.
More than 200K of that is for certifications so houses don't
burn down or neighbors lose their TV/cell reception.
And, I've got another 500K waiting behind that for any contingencies that
I failed to anticipate.
And I'm not planning on selling any devices!
Sounds nuts. But I guess everyone has their own idea of what nuts is.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: |--------------------------------------------------------------|How do you install computers in "public places" and ensure
|"[. . .] Have you ever considered how to share a computer with|
|unknown users and still safeguard its continued operation?]" | |--------------------------------------------------------------|
No.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: |------------------------------------------------------------------|The risk, there, is "you" are unlikely to be expert enough in
|"[. . .] |
|- The [. . .] principal can mismanage the monies and decide you're|
| the easiest party to screw out of payment |
|[. . .] |
|[. . .] (the basic science may be wrong!)" | |------------------------------------------------------------------|
True.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: |---------------------------------------------------------|As with most technical problems, solutions exist -- usually within
|"How do you install computers in "public places" [. . .]"| |---------------------------------------------------------|
I do not.
On 6/13/2026 12:35 PM, Niocl s P˘l Caile n de Ghloucester wrote:E.g., I designed an electronic kilowatt-hour meter in the 80's.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:The risk, there, is "you" are unlikely to be expert enough in
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[. . .]˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ |
|- The [. . .] principal can mismanage the monies and decide you're|
|˙ the easiest party to screw out of payment˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ |
|[. . .]˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ |
|[. . .] (the basic science may be wrong!)"˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
True.
that science -- esp if it is an emerging technology.˙ (Or,
has political repercussions).˙ So, YOU take on some risk
in the hope that the other folks responsible for those
aspects of the project are up to the challenge, don't
bail out, die, etc.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
How do you install computers in "public places" and ensure
the "next customer" that the PREVIOUS customer didn't install
a keylogger or something else that would compromise the
followon user's use of that machine?
If you can't assure those users, then why would they ever make use
of your "service"?
Conside computer laboratory for students. Not exactly public
space but almost: anybody could came from outside and have
access to computers (but only valid users had accounts). We
had password on BIOS, password on bootloader. BIOS was
configured to boot only from hard drive. Some machines were
Linux-only, some dual booted to Linux and Windows. In the
Windows 98 era Windows partition was rewriten overnight using
image stored on the server. Later this process was broken by
changes to Windows, but Windows security get a bit better, so
we relied just on Windows security.
There was also a machine running DOS program available toYou don't have to install a keylogger or otherwise try to
general public. This DOS program run inside DOSEMU, machine
booted to Linux and automatically logged in DOSEMU user,
startup environement for that user started DOSEMU, so for
users that looked just as a DOS machine, except for that
files were subject to Linux permissions. The actual reason
for doing this was that the DOS program accessed data on
several CD-s. Linux allowed storing CD-s on HDD, so
everything just worked from HDD which was nicer than
dealing with CD-s.
Certainly this was breakable. One possible way would be for
one student to leave a program displying something like a
system login screen trying to get a password from fellow students.
Most students learned to use magic key combination to force
logout of previous user, so this was not a big problem. Another
way would be to exchange keyboard for a modified one which logged
keystrokes. Keyboard is somewhat bulky and somebody binging in new
keyboard could be noticed, but equvalent effect could be
obtainde by adding some tiny extender plug for keyboard.
On the really public machine above user did not need to
provide a password and was not expected to enter any passwords,
so protecting users was not a problem.
In practice we had no traces of anybody trying to setup a
keylogger. OTOH, RAM in one machine got stolen (after that
we installed locks on computer cases).
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 494928:15:44 |
| Calls: | 162 |
| Files: | 568 |
| D/L today: |
14 files (349K bytes) |
| Messages: | 74,957 |