"I suspect that over time legal interpretation might change as software finds its way into more and more products and the difference hardware and software blurs, but at the moment that is the case."
I honestly think this idea needs to speed up. Too many software houses are pushing out shit (not properly reviewed / tested) code and expecting the public / customers to simply accept this as the status quo. Would we accept this level of ineptitude in the physical world? Absoutely not!
Can you imagine it, a bridge gets built, but then needs to be closed 18 thousand times for patches
When (and some might argue this is now) poorly coded software starts affecting peoples lives, there needs to be some accountability for shonky sloppy coding, simply putting a user license agreement saying you are not responsible for jack shit is not good enough anymore
If your software needs to be patched, time and time again, and then some more, you need to take a introspectional look at your software development cycle, perhaps not enough money is being invested into the testing phase and as a company you have decided to kick that particular conundrum down the path
I should mention the Tesla (BETA) autopilot which had a disclaimer to the driver that if they enabled it they acknowleged it was still BETA and accepts the risks with no liability to Telsa.
What the actual fuck, what choice did other roads users get?
This is the kind of "we're not responsble" malarky that needs to fucking change
Honestly, when you have a government which doesnt know the difference between a hashtag and hashing, what chance do we have to have a government to properly legislate for this technological clusterfuck waiting to happen. I'm no luddite but some people need to wake up and smell the impending technological signularity, before its too late