First, the “human interest” narrative:
Software that controls your body should always respect your freedom. This article is a recap of scandals of medical devices, like hearing aids, insulin pumps, bionic eyes, and pacemakers, and what we can learn from them. It’s astonishing: you wouldn’t expect these devices to be run by software in such a way that they can leave you completely helpless.
In July, users of the proprietary software app LibreLink, who live in the UK and use Apple devices, found that the app they depend on to monitor their blood sugar was not working anymore after the developer Abbott pushed an updated for the app. Monitoring glucose levels helps people with diabetes to see when their glucose level is too low or too high, which is a critical part of treatment.
There’s another:
And a scenario where a company abandons service or updates to its users is not merely theoretical. This is the bitter reality faced by users of eye implants produced by Second Sight Medical Products since the company decided to abandon the technology in 2020 when facing the prospect of bankruptcy. Terry Byland, whose sight has been dependent on the first-generation Argus implant since 2004, says of his experience, “As long as nothing goes wrong, I’m fine. But if something does go wrong with it, well, I’m screwed. Because there’s no way of getting it fixed.” That’s what also happened to Barbara Campbell, whose retinal implant suddenly stopped working when she was on a subway. This horrifying fate does not need to be a given for people like Terry and Barbara. If medical aid companies distributing software decided to release the software’s source code under a free license such as the GNU General Public License v3.0 or later, then third party developers could help those people, but they haven’t. It seems that, when the going gets tough, they’d rather leave their customers helpless.
These are terrifying scenarios but the dorks in Free Software Foundation fail to realise that it is often impossible to conform to standards or certifications. Who will take responsibility if the open-source software malfunctions?The high cost is for certifications.
I couldn’t see any mention about the certification authorities in the entire narrative.
I hope things are addressed soon.
RadOncNotes 