Anyone care for a law that will:
   1. Ban unhackable vehicles and other life-critical devices (meaning:
   life-critical software must be rewritable)
   2. Require all life-critical software to be released in source format,
   for the purpose of public auditing, improving it's safety features and
   employing the software on the devices it is intended for.
   3. Any tools used to translate the source to writable code must also be
   provided in the manner of 2.
   These laws should still allow manufacturers to:
   1. Spy on their users without that being changed
   2. Lock down their code so competitors may not use it (proprietary open
   source)
   3. Have software in the machines that is not opened; so long as it is
   properly (verifiably) isolated from essential systems
   4. Legally own the entire machine
   5. Drop guarantees when non-security-related modifications have been
   made
   etc
   This law should be as precise and immutable as possible. This is not a
   matter of "I want to hack things" or "competition would be better if it
   were open" or "I want to own what I have/use", etc, etc. Being precise
   with the law allows it to pass more readily.
   Personally I think if everything were required open source and
   self-compiled; that would objectively be better for humanity as a
   whole. For protecting innovation there's patents, closing the source is
   excess. Etc. etc.
   But this is not about fun. This is about extremely basic safety. It is
   about national security; if 500,000 cars go haywire at the same time a
   lot of deaths, directly and indirectly, can be expected. And it's not
   just the cars; it's also the industrial machines, medical equipment,
   the metro's and trains, the automated cars and busses and trucks and
   aircraft, medium sized hobbyist drones, heaters, stoves and ovens,
   automated doors, elevators, fire, smoke and other emergency alarms,
   etc.
   Should a foreign country cyberattack whilst doing any other kind of
   large scale attack; the effects could be devastating. Should a person
   be marked for assassination, no one would be the wiser.
   I'd argue for similar protection for fridges, televisions, smartphones,
   etc, etc, as more and more items are expected to become networked and
   essential for upholding basic freedoms and ways of life. And I'd argue
   to have it for privacy; not just essential safety.
   Simply put; the simple version of the law above is imperative for
   personal and national security. And it doesn't exist.
   (note: all countries should be more worried about cybersecurity. I
   cannot trust my government to act as it should if every public servant
   can be blackmailed or thoroughly spied upon. It's not hard to improve
   security; but it's much harder now that nobody's doing it, and now that
   it's given no priority)