> That would be a good reason for the user not to change the software in > this device. However, that does not mean he should be stopped.
The FDA disagrees :)
Governments often oppose people's freedom. That is why fighting for freedom is hard.
They add requirements to ensure they detect faulty devices. It is a fact of physics that flash devices go bad over time - I'm sure even you appreciate the ability to know if something in your devices is the image that you thought it is, and doesn't have bit errors.
That sounds like a good feature. But if it is done in a way that permits the manufacturer to change the software after sale, then it can be done in a way that permits the owner to change the software too.
All the "circuitry" are integrated circuits. There are very few (none) external components to modify. Test strips are connected directly to the measurement IC, and the measurement IC is connected directly the the processor.
I did not know that. Thank you for the information.
While I probably would not want to change my glucometer, the practice of designing hardware so that people cannot change it is becoming more and more of a threat to our freedom in general.
If a product is required to be locked down by a certifying authority, (whom ever that may be), they can't use GPL3 code.
If the users' freedom is protected by GPLv3, the certifying authority that attacks users' freedom blocks the use of this code.
While I recognize that developers who get in the middle of this battle did not cause the battle, I will not surrender the fight just for their sake.
This really has nothing to do with tivoization, since in the Tivo case - they had no greater certification authority - and were just trying to restrict people's use.
These companies (if I understand the facts correctly from what people have said here) are doing the same thing to the user that tivo does, so it is equally wrong. The wrong is not in their motive, it is in what they do.
Suppose there were an official certification authority for video players. (Hollywood could probably buy such a law if it wanted to; Obama would be glad to sign it.) Would that make the tivo ok? Obviously not.
Thus, the existence of a certification authority does not alter the concluisions about the ethical issue of tivoization.
I support effective steps to protect safety for the users of medical devices. But, as I've explained above, that does not require tivoization, so it does not excuse tivoization either.