When the API that enables the effect has a buffer overflow that no one noticed because the feature was snuck in and attackers exploit it to take over your brakes (and from there the CAN bus because how could the brakes possibly have any vulnerabilities?), you'll care.
My brakes don't have an about menu, they don't have a monitor, and they don't have a mouse. Everyone agrees they are safety critical.
My point was to demonstrate through a nonsensical example that different environments have different ambient expectations for reliability. If a problem in a low-reliability environment propagates to a high-reliability environment, the root cause is the failure of isolation, not the bug or exploit in the low-reliability environment.
Now, I would never actually ship an easter egg, but that's because I have no faith in the corporate blame game to correctly assign blame, not because I place the slightest stock in the idea that safety and security are a genuine reason why it shouldn't be done.
That opinion scares me. Genuinely. Have you seen its protocol list grow in recent years? It has taken on a hundred thousand easter eggs worth of overhead to add 26 protocols, of which you probably use 2, but you consider it safety critical?
