Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 08:14, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On 11/20/23 00:21, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > Second version, taking into account feedback. Looking for seconds at
> > this point:
> >
> > ----- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -----
> >
> > Debian Public Statement about the EU Cyber Resilience Act and the
> > Product Liability Directive
> >
> > The European Union is currently preparing a regulation "on horizontal
> > cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements" known as
> > the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). It's currently in the final "trilogue"
> > phase of the legislative process. The act includes a set of essential
> > cybersecurity and vulnerability handling requirements for manufacturers.
> > It will require products to be accompanied by information and
> > instructions to the user. Manufacturers will need to perform risk
> > assessments and produce technical documentation and for critical
> > components, have third-party audits conducted. Security issues under
> > active exploitation will have to be reported to European authorities
> > within 24 hours (1). The CRA will be followed up by an update to the
> > existing Product Liability Directive (PLD) which, among other things,
> > will introduce the requirement for products on the market using software
> > to be able to receive updates to address security vulnerabilities.
> >
> > Given the current state of the electronics and computing devices market,
> > constellated with too many irresponsible vendors not taking taking
> > enough precautions to ensure and maintain the security of their products,
> > resulting in grave issues such as the plague of ransomware (that, among
> > other things, has often caused public services to be severely hampered or
> > shut down entirely, across the European Union and beyond, to the
> > detriment of its citizens), the Debian project welcomes this initiative
> > and supports its spirit and intent.
> >
> > The Debian project believes Free and Open Source Software Projects to be
> > very well positioned to respond to modern challenges around security and
> > accountability that these regulations aim to improve for products
> > commercialized on the Single Market. Debian is well known for its
> > security track record through practices of responsible disclosure and
> > coordination with upstream developers and other Free and Open Source
> > Software projects. The project aims to live up to the commitment made in
> > the Debian Social Contract: "We will not hide problems." (2)
> >
> > The Debian project welcomes the attempt of the legislators to ensure
> > that the development of Free and Open Source Software is not negatively
> > affected by these regulations, as clearly expressed by the European
> > Commission in response to stakeholders' requests (1) and as stated in
> > Recital 10 of the preamble to the CRA:
> >
> > 'In order not to hamper innovation or research, free and open-source
> > software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial
> > activity should not be covered by this Regulation.'
> >
> > The Debian project however notes that not enough emphasis has been
> > employed in all parts of these regulations to clearly exonerate Free
> > and Open Source Software developers and maintainers from being subject
> > to the same liabilities as commercial vendors, which has caused
> > uncertainty and worry among such stakeholders.
> >
> > Therefore, the Debian project asks the legislators to enhance the
> > text of these regulations to clarify beyond any reasonable doubt that
> > Free and Open Source Software developers and contributors are not going
> > to be treated as commercial vendors in the exercise of their duties when
> > merely developing and publishing Free and Open Source Software, with
> > special emphasis on clarifying grey areas, such as donations,
> > contributions from commercial companies and developing Free and Open
> > Source Software that may be later commercialised by a commercial vendor.
> > It is fundamental for the interests of the European Union itself that
> > Free and Open Source Software development can continue to thrive and
> > produce high quality software components, applications and operating
> > systems, and this can only happen if Free and Open Source Software
> > developers and contributors can continue to work on these projects as
> > they have been doing before these new regulations, especially but not
> > exclusively in the context of nonprofit organizations, without being
> > encumbered by legal requirements that are only appropriate for
> > commercial companies and enterprises.
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks a lot for taking the time to word out things this way.
>
> However, I really think this text is being too nice with the EU. The
> feeling in short is reading:
> - what you did was good
> - what you did was good
> - what you did was good
> - oh, btw, there's room for improvement... it'd be nice if...
>
> That's not at all my feeling about the CRA. I'm once more really unhappy
> about EU, I feel like we're getting trapped by big corp and their
> lobbying power, and we need to use stronger words.
Directives such as GDPR, DMA and CRA itself, along with many others
and a bunch of very fat fines levied in recent years, shows that it's
not really the case. Despite the marketing spin, Apple was not fine
with having to swap their proprietary charging connector with USB-C.
Intel was not happy with being slapped with a half a billion fine.
Microsoft was not happy with having to unbundle Bing and Edge from
Windows. Literally no company ever was happy about having to comply
with the GDPR.
Do these go far enough? Of course not, it's always possible to do
better, and compromises will water down some parts, but it's a good
start, and about damn time a regulatory entity stepped up and tried to
put some order to the absolute chaos that is the electronics consumer
market, and the non-existent security support that plagues a very
large chunk of it. It is simply jaw-dropping that there are companies
allowed to put on the market smartphones (which are for a large part
of the population the only devices they use, and to which they entrust
all their personal data) that stop receiving security support after
just a few months of being sold. Will the CRA and PLD definitely fix
100% of the problems for all times? Probably not, but if they start
dispensing some well-deserved kicks up the backsides to some of those
irresponsible vendors, then that sounds good to me.
Reply to: