We need safe updates with transparent documentation as to all the changes, with hardware enforced feature switches. Forcing them to go through an approval process doesn't sound bad until you've met regulators like the FAA -- or Apple.
If you allow users to approve and roll back updates then there is some ability to recover after bad updates. Of course, you don't want theives to be able to roll back to a vulnerable release, but you can require the master owner key & code for rollback.
I wonder how long it will be before we start to see legal or regulatory interventions in this area. Mandatory self-updating and phone-home functionality is rapidly infecting technologies we rely on every day, from our cars to our home computers to our TV sets.
This always-connected, always-updated approach inevitably introduces some risks. It often causes intrusions into privacy or brings changes after purchase that users of these technologies don't necessarily want.
Competition in these markets is evidently insufficient to provide alternatives for those who don't want anything to do with this modern culture. I don't believe that is limited to a small group of eccentric tinfoil-hat fans any more.
Hopefully it won't take some sort of widespread disaster to wake the politicians up to the dangers here, though given the past performance of the political class around the world when it comes to technology issues, I'm not particularly optimistic.
Consumers don't have a voice here, and (given the Democrats' record) I don't see that changing regardless of who wins the upcoming election.
Not long IMO. It'll be sold as a safety measure, but the real purpose will be to limit competition. I think it's similar to "warranty void if removed" stickers, but I'm worried we're not going to get the same pragmatic legislation that makes those ignorable.