Table of Contents
- Definitions
- Introduction
- Terms of Service and Privacy Policy Documents
- Terms of Service and Privacy Policy Change Notification
- Process for Terms of Service Enforcement
- Transparency About Terms of Service Enforcement
- Identity Policy
- Security Oversight
- Third-Party Requests for User Data
- Data Control
- Data Collection
- Minimal Data Collection
- Data Use
- Data Retention and Deletion
- Threat Notification
- User Notification About Third-Party Requests for User Information
- Transparency Reporting
- Governance
- Open Source
- Interoperability
- Ownership
- Resale
- Functionality Over Time
- Privacy by Default
- Best Build Practices
- Authentication
- Encryption
- Known Exploit Resistance
- Vulnerability Disclosure Program
- Security Over Time
- Product Stability
- Personal Safety
- Open Innovation
- Business Model
- Repair Accessibility
- Repair Penalty
- Data Benefits
Interoperability
Criteria: The company does not prohibit use of the product with other, complementary products.
See this test in action:
Indicators
- The manufacturer does not use software, copyright, or other devices to restrict the use of products and services that would otherwise be possible to use with your existing products (e.g., set-top boxes, third party applications, etc.).
Methodology for Assessing Each Indicator
1) The manufacturer does not use software, copyright, or other devices to restrict the use of products and services that would otherwise be possible to use with your existing products (e.g., set-top boxes, third party applications, etc.).
- Gather information from online sources, searching for indications as to whether the manufacturer exerts control over the ability for products or services developed by third parties to interact or interoperate with the product. These can be either indications that the manufacturer seeks to prohibit or to promote such as:
- Prohibitions in the product’s warranty or terms of service on using another device or service to connect to, interact with, “scrape,” or otherwise interoperate with the product.
- News articles about the manufacturer attempting to stop people from interoperating their product with other products either through legal action or changes to the hardware or software of the product.
- News articles about anyone “cracking” or “getting root” on the product, which may indicate that the manufacturer chose to make use of software designed to prohibit interoperability, causing customers to break or remove that software in order to achieve interoperability.
- Indications on the manufacturer’s website that they promote interoperability, such as a “developer’s” page or a description of the product’s Application Programming Interface (API).
- Online advertisements for other products that describe themselves as working with the product being reviewed.
- If the manufacturer promotes interoperability with the product, either through affirmative statements or through the existence of APIs or other developer documentation, mark PASS.
- If there is evidence of other products being designed and marketed to interoperate with the product, mark PASS.
- If there is some evidence to give the product a PASS for this indicator, but there are not enough details publicly available to implement that interoperability in another product, mark PARTIAL PASS.
- If there is no evidence of the manufacturer’s stance toward interoperability in its products, either for or against, but the device can be connected to other devices such as a smart speaker or home assistant, mark PARTIAL PASS.
- If there is evidence of the manufacturer prohibiting interoperability either in legal documents or through legal or technical action, mark FAIL.
- If there is evidence of third parties hacking the product to remove software controls, attempt to ascertain through further research what purpose those controls served and if the purpose is squarely aimed at preventing interoperability, mark FAIL.