If I spend $50,000 on a tractor that also has a cloud component that drives the tractor around for me, is it also not fair to expect that I can use that tractor just as a tractor if I don't have internet access at my farm?
It's a different story if it's eg. an Alexa device thats primary purpose is to be connected to the internet.
If a device is in a class of product that doesn't necessarily need a cloud connection/account/whatever, it shouldn't require it.
Often it's not practical to switch to a competing product. Sometimes it's not possible at all. Consumers should have rights here, and it's legislation's job to provide them, in a just society.
If when you bought the tractor, the tractor company said “this tractor requires that you have internet access and keep the tractor online”, and you bought it, then no, it’s not fair of you to expect to just disregard that.
Now, if you want to take a screwdriver and serial cable to the tractor and hack the crap out it, and you manage to bypass the requirement, have at it. You own the tractor. They can feel free to void your warranty / not give you updates, but you can do whatever you want with your property.
But to buy a device that says “internet connection required” and then be angry when it requires an internet connection doesn’t make sense to me, nor does asking the government to mandate the business model used by tractor (or VR headset) manufacturers.
Okay, now picture a world where all high end tractors have this functionality.
Companies have determined that's what they're going to offer the customer and they'll brick any attempts at modifying the hardware. They're making money refining their AI and selling off customer data, so why not?
You need the high end tractors because they're the only machines that meet the requirements of what you're doing.
This is what the legislation folks want to stave off. It's in a similar vein to the right to repair movement (which is dealing with similar restrictions right now, in the real world - see John Deere tractors).
I think I was pretty clear in my comment above in saying that I support right to repair and the ability to modify, disassemble, and interrogate the device you have in your possession.
I appreciate that folks in this thread are attempting to propose legislation to stave off behavior they believe is dangerous. My concern is that using legislation in this way has knock on effects that make free society radically worse, because at its core it requires being OK with using government to restrict what technology combinations are legal to bring to market.
It's a different story if it's eg. an Alexa device thats primary purpose is to be connected to the internet.
If a device is in a class of product that doesn't necessarily need a cloud connection/account/whatever, it shouldn't require it.
Often it's not practical to switch to a competing product. Sometimes it's not possible at all. Consumers should have rights here, and it's legislation's job to provide them, in a just society.