[HN Gopher] Digital fair repair act passed in New York
___________________________________________________________________
Digital fair repair act passed in New York
Author : punnerud
Score : 68 points
Date : 2022-06-08 18:21 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nysenate.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nysenate.gov)
| bradfa wrote:
| Exemptions for farm equipment, motor vehicles, medical devices,
| and household appliances with "a digital electronic product
| embedded within it". So... Basically laptops and phones are
| covered by this?
|
| Is a TV an appliance? My washing machine and dryer don't have
| digital electronics within them (they're like 20 years old) but
| all my other home appliances do.
| usrn wrote:
| It's still a lot better than nothing.
| bradfa wrote:
| Oh yes, definitely. I just wish that NY lawmakers would have
| more backbone than federal lawmakers. Getting elected to the
| state government costs significantly less money for a
| campaign than winning a federal position, state lawmakers
| should not be as easy to be influenced by large corporations
| as they have a lot less to lose in comparison to federal
| lawmakers in terms of future campaign contributions.
|
| Or maybe I'm very naive. I do live in NY, my elected state
| representatives did not spend a ton to win their seats.
| [deleted]
| donmcronald wrote:
| Farm equipment is more important than everything else combined
| IMO.
|
| I don't understand how most countries aren't terrified of
| having their ability to repair farm equipment, which is
| essential to food production, locked behind parts serialization
| with the encryption keys controlled by a foreign company.
|
| Keeping repair prices in check should be viewed as a beneficial
| side effect of right to repair legislation. The real win is
| diversifying knowledge and maintaining the ability to repair
| equipment domestically.
| bberenberg wrote:
| Wouldn't the opposite argument be easier given past history?
| \They\ want it to be hard to repair so only the country that
| has authority over the manufacturer has power over the food
| production of countries that don't have power over the
| manufacturer.
| smolder wrote:
| Exempting motor vehicles is also pretty terrible in my
| opinion, as someone who knows how to build one from parts but
| needs to go get fleeced by dealers thanks to all the
| obstacles they create for self repair.
| masukomi wrote:
| Is it accurate to say they're terrified of having the ability
| to repair farm equipment? I think it's probably more accurate
| to ask "How come we have a political system where the
| politicians are more beholden to the large companies who
| 'donate' to their campaigns than the people they represent?"
|
| or "how come so many politicians are terrified of loosing the
| donations of the farm equipment manufacturers" & "why don't
| we regulate politician's incomes such that they can't profit
| from campaign 'donations'?"
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It's the first domino to fall.
| AndrewUnmuted wrote:
| This means the very important work being done at tractorhacking
| [0] has become even more important. What incentive does a
| publicly-traded firm whose key shareholder is Bill Gates have
| to ever make their products repairable by New York's farmers
| now?
|
| [0] https://tractorhacking.github.io/
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Gotta start somewhere!
|
| Don't let perfect be the enemy of good!
| ouid wrote:
| You just do the thing. It's not like they're walking the
| appalachian trail or making a baby. You can start at the end,
| and the fact that they haven't is a serious problem.
| [deleted]
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| News from last week, a handful of posts including this one:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31614055
| NonNefarious wrote:
| Seems well-intentioned but inept, in that it only applies to
| "digital electronic equipment."
|
| Why?
| ImprobableTruth wrote:
| Pick your battles. No way this would have passed if they had
| also included e.g. farm equipment.
| acomjean wrote:
| I don't understand the Farm Equipment exemption. Its not like
| NY manufactures farm equipment. Its a big enough market that
| I doubt any companies would want to leave.
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| Rural NY has many farmers. Like any other state. State laws
| can propagate to other states if left unchecked by
| corporate representatives. Our legislatures don't represent
| the interests of the people as well as they probably
| should.
| basisword wrote:
| Probably to get it passed. Include more things and you need to
| convince more people/lobbyists and you'll never get anything
| through.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Probably safety.. low voltages devices. 'Safety' was a big
| argument for those against.
| [deleted]
| basisword wrote:
| The purpose of the act for anyone unfamiliar:
|
| >> This bill requires original equipment manufacturers (OEM) to
| make diag-nostic and repair information for digital electronic
| parts and equipment available to independent repair providers and
| consumers if such parts and repair information are also available
| to OEM authorized repair providers.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| It's a shame that states have to do this and not the federal
| government.
| superb-owl wrote:
| Very exciting to see this pass after California's bill was killed
| [1]
|
| Right to repair is one of those frustrating issues that has broad
| public support, but not enough passion to impact elections. This
| makes it easy for a small number of corporations to influence
| legislatures via lobbying and campaign donations, and effectively
| block popular measures.
|
| [1]
| https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/01/california_repair_bil...
| eikenberry wrote:
| It feels very much like Copyright abuse/extensions. Extremely
| common, everyone is against it, yet not important enough to
| impact elections which allows a small number of corporations to
| influence...
| jbverschoor wrote:
| > via lobbying and campaign donations
|
| you mean bribes
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| I used to think this was sarcasm. Then I met people who
| literally didn't understand the difference between putting
| money in a politician's pocket / promising them personal
| perks and lobbying then or donating to their campaign or PAC.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| At some point you have to ask why people who clearly aren't
| doing it for patriotic or altruistic reasons are willing to
| spend tens of millions of dollars to apply for a job that
| pays hundreds of thousands a year.
| sofixa wrote:
| It's basically the same thing, just regulated. When you
| follow the (extremely limit in the US, thankfully at least
| a bit more complex in other developed countries) rules to
| give money to a politician for favours it's called
| lobbying.
|
| You can lobby without money too ( by voicing your opinion),
| so maybe that's where you see a difference?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _basically the same thing, just regulated_
|
| Campaign expenditures are audited and regulated. Lobbying
| generally involves little of material value going to the
| politician--it's connecting with experts and writing
| bills their staff are too stretched to deal with.
|
| PACs are the black hole in the equation. But if you think
| a PAC can just buy a politician a boat or a house without
| consequences, you've severely underestimated the FBI's
| appetite for those kinds of cases. Conflating these modes
| normalises actual bribery.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > if you think a PAC can just buy a politician a boat or
| a house without consequences
|
| That's not the problem. The problem is the spending on
| political campaigning. They're bribing the politicians
| with the political power of office (if they don't take
| the money, then it's almost impossible for them to get
| elected). Other countries deal with this by having strict
| (and relatively low) limits on campaign spending.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Well sure believe what you want about regulation and
| audits.. one of the least corrupt countries (the
| Netherlands) has scandal after scandal.
|
| If the information is not there, it can't be audited. And
| politicians seem to have very bad memory.
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| You can take a personal loan as a politician to support
| your campaign and have that paid back by campaign
| contributions. A house can be bought in an revocable
| trust by a political friend and be used as the
| politician's home address for residency purposes and
| physical residency purposes. Speaking engagements and
| their ilk often pay politicians for minimal work. A
| cousin or friend can be paid by a politician's campaign
| to perform services for a campaign. Most politicians and
| elected officials receive 2X or 3X pension time served
| over regular firefighters and first responders and other
| public state empolyees. A part-time politician over 5
| years earns as much pension as a public employee working
| for 10-15 years in many states. Benefits abound in the
| rules for the rulemakers.
|
| "Arm's length transactions" are more heavily regulated
| for corporate minions than they are for politicians in
| many ways.
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| Lobbying without money is whispering in a cacophonous,
| raucous jungle of influence. You will not be heard most
| of the time.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| This is great news! I am extremely excited to see what this means
| in practice!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-08 23:02 UTC)