But is it malicious or innocuous? I could see just the assumption being made that if it hasn’t phoned home it must be malfunctioning and ask risk mitigation then force it to brick. It’s not super unreasonable considering very few people will ever block the comms.
I wouldn’t argue it’s reasonable, but these kinds of decisions get made without much thought all the time whether we like it or not. It’s possible they just didn’t give it much thought. Or, it was just a directive from Legal and so nobody asks questions. Possibly the marketing team doesn’t even know this got made and still touts it as “works offline”.
I’m not really defending it but pointing out this is still on a different plane than outright maliciousness.
Punishment due to not receiving telemetry? Please, that's fantasy land stuff.
It might be a malfunction caused by his blocking, but the idea that someone in HQ was like "guys, we've got someone blocking telemetry!" "disable his vacuum, the bastard".
Or in some design meeting they were like "what do we do if a handful of privacy nerds block our telemetry?" "well.. I guess we should automatically disable their vacuums in a weird way so they repeatedly send them in for repair and it costs us loads of money".
"2024/02/29, 14:06:55.852622 [LogKimbo][CAppSystemState] Handle message! cmd_id 501 RS_CTRL_REMOTE_EVENT, len 8 serialno 0"
Note something being named RS_CTRL_REMOTE_EVENT