[HN Gopher] Oregon passes right-to-repair law Apple lobbied to kill
___________________________________________________________________
Oregon passes right-to-repair law Apple lobbied to kill
Author : Lariscus
Score : 458 points
Date : 2024-03-14 11:42 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techdirt.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techdirt.com)
| resource_waste wrote:
| Maybe I read too much philosophy, but why doesnt anyone see that
| when Apple lobbies the government they are doing something
| measurably immoral(If you subscribe to ethical institution).
|
| Neurotransmitters signaling pain happen throughout our human
| population with these anti-consumer acts.
|
| What I can't understand is: If a single human lobbied the
| government for a selfish cause, they would be an a-hole. Why is
| this different?
|
| I'm all for an equal playing field, lets all go Realpolitik,
| everyone goes amoral. I just find it odd and a bit frustrating
| that corporations can commit immoral acts but humans cannot. I
| imagine this causes inequality.
| Drakim wrote:
| Modern capitalism has created a sort of new type of nobility
| out of corporations, a layer of entities above that of
| citizens. Just as you say, their actions are not judged by the
| same standard we'd use for normal people, and they can actually
| just get away with fines for breaking laws that would land
| normal people in jail. And actions we'd deep deeply immoral for
| normal people to engage in are morally acceptable for them.
| sQL_inject wrote:
| I would refine your statement slightly, it's modern
| corporatism, not capitalism.
|
| We hold corporations in too high of regard and have
| intermingled what should be free and open exchange of money
| and goods with governmental power, lobbying.
| Drakim wrote:
| Sure, but names aren't what's important here. It's the
| logical conclusion to capitalism, even if it's more fitting
| to call it corporatism.
|
| Either the government is big and the corporations lobbies
| and gets undue influence over how society and it's laws
| operates though the government, or the government is small
| and the corporations get undue influence over how society
| and it's law operates though sheer unregulated societal
| power. The group who controls your means of getting food,
| shelter, medicine, and information will have power over
| your life, and will bend the rules to their advantage using
| that power.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Boss: "If you don't like the pay they can find another job"
|
| You: "I found another job"
|
| Boss: "What about loyalty? Are you a job hopper?"
|
| You feel bad for some reason.
|
| The morality we were taught in preschool largely serves the
| interests of the elite. Things like "if someone does you
| wrong, don't seek revenge, forgive them" are really helpful
| messages to have ingrained in society when you are a
| corporate looter with a name and a address.
| latexr wrote:
| You're starting from the assumption that no one thinks what
| Apple is doing is wrong or immoral, but that isn't true. They
| have been and continue to be criticised to no end, for this
| very matter and others, including on Hacker News.
|
| Search for Apple and Right to Repair as keywords and see for
| yourself. Add Louis Rossmann to the mix and you can't miss it.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Personally, I'm just jaded. Corporations have acted this way as
| long as I can remember. I just accept that corporations act
| like sociopaths and the people running the large corporations
| are more interested in buying a new yacht than doing the right
| thing.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| Apple changed in about 1996. When Steve Jobs came back he
| ended all of that 3rd party business. It was costing his
| company money. They went from a starting to thrive secondary
| clone market. To a closed off eco system pretty much
| overnight. It used to be fairly easy to get info on parts and
| what to do from Apple. That singular act saved Apple from
| becoming the next IBM. However, it doomed the rest of us to
| this weird dynamic of Apple choosing when to help the little
| guy out or not. Usually it seems to fall on the 'not' side.
| If Apple had always been this way it would not be as
| frustrating.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| To play the devil's advocate, the US economic system doesn't
| have a clear notion of what is selfish or not.
|
| One reason why lobbying is allowed in the first place is to let
| corporations express what is good and bad for them and have
| their interests in the balance. The assumption is what's good
| for corporations increases the overall market and benefits
| society.
|
| Doubting that assumption is probably out of the current
| overtone window[edited]
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Knowing both sides of the argument around this topic and apple,
| it's not hard to understand why apple has a compelling argument
| and why it still deserves to be heard.
|
| You have to remember that tons of people have near zero tech
| awareness, and regardless of the laws, will just bring their
| iPhone to the Apple store if it breaks. The same way people
| still go to dealers to fix their car, even out of warranty.
|
| This means Apple can say "Hey, give us full control of your
| phone repairs, and we can kill the theft market for iPhones.
| You are going to come to us anyway, so might as well let us end
| iPhone theft too"
|
| So this is why lawmakers still sit down with Apple. And the
| generous lunches.
|
| (Apple DRM'ing all the internal hardware does effectively make
| stolen iphones completely worthless, in whole or in parts.)
|
| -For the record, I have personally written my senator before
| asking him to support right to repair laws.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I wonder what would happen if the law required devices with
| unpaired parts to be available, but still allowing the sale
| of devices with paired parts.
| Someone wrote:
| If there would be enough unpaired devices in the wild, both
| types of devices would get stolen (or, worse, robbed, with
| risk of bodily harm). Thieves would not return the ones
| that are worthless to them to their owners (why would they
| take that risk?). So, it would make the protection
| worthless for those willing to opt-in.
|
| And no, making it somewhat easy to check whether a phone is
| locked down wouldn't help. Thieves and robbers won't spend
| even a second to do that check while still near the crime
| scene. It would have to be absolutely obvious (say by
| having orange and black devices) for thieves to not steal
| the locked-down ones.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Presumably the unpaired parts would pair after being
| installed
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| Apple has had the full control on supply, and it hasn't
| killed the theft market, the same way having control on
| anything you can install on a iGadget has killed the scam
| industry, so if we need to get a phone stolen, might as well
| make it repairable, how long since we start classifying apple
| arguments as pure marketing detached from reality?
| dns_snek wrote:
| > (Apple DRM'ing all the internal hardware does effectively
| make stolen iphones completely worthless, in whole or in
| parts.)
|
| This claim, or to be more specific, the claim that this
| reduces theft, is missing evidence. Are iPhones really being
| stolen at a substantially lower rate than other brands,
| correlating with implementation of these locks?
| pchristensen wrote:
| Lots of articles starting 2013 that Activation Lock reduced
| theft by measurable amounts. I couldn't figure out how to
| search for articles about drm'ed parts.
| tombert wrote:
| Sample size of one, and anecdotal at that, but someone
| snatched my iPhone out of my hands last July and ran away.
| I of course reported it stolen to the police and locked it
| down in FindMy, so in theory I think it's a brick, but I
| don't think that the fact that it was an iPhone really
| deterred them from stealing it from me.
|
| They actually tried to extort $300 from me to get it back
| which I of course would not pay, but maybe there's still a
| market in that for some people?
| jancsika wrote:
| > So this is why lawmakers still sit down with Apple. And the
| generous lunches.
|
| I have to say, this sounds trivially false, and I don't think
| I'm nitpicking.
|
| Lawmakers sit down with Apple because Apple has an enormous
| amount of money and power.
|
| _After_ some of these lawmakers sit down for lunch with the
| lobbyist, _perhaps_ they make the assessment that what Apple
| is asking for is still doable /ethical/practical/etc.
|
| Edit: clarification
| cqqxo4zV46cp wrote:
| This comes across as teenage thoughts masquerading as
| philosophy. "Neurotransmitters signalling pain...". What?
| Massive citation needed. Words mean things. "People get sad
| about things, yet things happen" is thought-terminating
| nonsense.
|
| Nobody, not even Tim Cook, considers themselves the Bad Guy.
| The real world doesn't work like that. This situation is
| certainly more nuanced than you're making it out to be. If
| you've been part of basically any discussion about this topic,
| you'd see that there are multiple sides. Starting from a
| position of "my preconceived view is correct and no other view
| exists" is intellectually dishonest and wilful ignorance.
| yungporko wrote:
| does anybody _not_ see it? isn 't the issue just that we're
| powerless to stop it?
| Goronmon wrote:
| _...when Apple lobbies the government they are doing something
| measurably immoral_
|
| Would you consider this to be true if the government was on the
| wrong side of an issue?
|
| Say politicians wanted to pass a law that every internet search
| query needed to reviewed and approved by a human before search
| results could be displayed. Would it be "measurably immoral"
| for Google to lobby against this law?
| finnjohnsen2 wrote:
| > Neurotransmitters signaling pain happen throughout our human
| population
|
| I love this formulation
| ribit wrote:
| Why would you think that replacement part authentication is
| immoral? Quite in contrary, I'd say it's an important safety
| feature for devices that have access to extremely sensitive
| data. It's just important that the user has the authorization
| rights, and not the company.
| goku12 wrote:
| Did anyone mention parts authentication? Regardless, you seem
| to have answered the question you raised. Concepts like parts
| authentication and secure boot are great in theory. The
| immoral part is their implementation. They're designed to
| wrestle the post-sale control of devices away from the
| customer and consolidate it in the hands of the manufacturer.
| Besides the subversion of the concept of ownership itself,
| this leads to increased cost of device ownership in many
| different ways.
| jajko wrote:
| Its a bit like PR stunt for the techies here, while giving
| master keys to whole cloud to NSA behind the doors. And to
| claim this will never-ever-pinky-promise-happen we shall
| show it on some highly publicized FBI case.
|
| Maybe there were good intentions in the beginning and path
| was truly a good one, but not for a nanosecond do I believe
| they really made it 100%. Phone is simply not a secure
| device, doesn't matter who manufactures it, period. Neither
| are all the networks used to connect anywhere.
|
| If all this lowers theft its a good strategy overall, but
| with terrible misguided marketing.
| dns_snek wrote:
| Actual techies are interested in the inner workings and
| can see past marketing. The group you're referring to is
| either the wider public that doesn't have the technical
| expertise to analyze the claims made, or Apple loyalists
| who uncritically accept and defend Apple's reasoning.
|
| If this had anything to do with theft, Apple would only
| blacklist parts which were inside the device at the time
| of theft, and otherwise provide "pairing" tools for free.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _Maybe I read too much philosophy..._
|
| Or maybe not enough? Several philosophical frameworks are
| perfectly compatible with Apple doing legal things to benefit
| themselves and their customers.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Companies are just a trick to make you think they're not made
| of of people when in fact it's just a mask for decisions made
| by real fleshy humans. When a company does something immoral it
| is because a human at the company did something immoral.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| The text of this law is here [1]. The formatting is ridiculously
| bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within
| subsections within subsections with approximately zero
| indentation.
|
| Anyway, as far as I can tell, this law defines an independent
| repair provider as someone with a valid and unexpired
| certification demonstrating that they have the "technical
| capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and
| reliably repair consumer electronic equipment" and that the
| manufacturer is allowed to decide which certifications they
| trust.
|
| Without these certifications, you are not an independent repair
| provider and manufacturers can refuse to allow you to do
| anything. You can be just an average person repairing your own
| device, in which case the manufacturer must work with you. But
| you can expect to be forced to prove that you own the device
| before that happens.
|
| [1]
| https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/Downloads/Meas...
| Spivak wrote:
| It's the same for doing work on your house. If you're the owner
| you don't need to be licensed to do most repairs or renovations
| but to work on other people's houses you need certification.
|
| Not saying it's a good system, just that it's consistent.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| The difference being is that electricians are certified by a
| real and reputable body and manufacturers don't get to pick
| and choose.
|
| No doubt they will weaponise this ability
| samatman wrote:
| No they won't. The disconnect between computer programming
| and law is a rich and perennial source of amusement here on
| Hacker News.
|
| What happens if the manufacturer decides to be
| unreasonable, by saying that no industry standard of
| certification is acceptable, or just the one organization
| they founded themselves, or that sort of thing, is that
| they get a sharply-worded letter from the Oregon DA. If
| they don't sort it out then legal action will be taken. So
| they're not going to do that in the first place, because
| everyone actually involved in this stuff already knows
| that.
|
| The law isn't compiled. Its function relies on a common
| understanding of context which is the major course of study
| in law school. If a CEO ordered a company to do the sort of
| thing you're proposing, it would be against the advice of
| council.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| No, this would be like if the city's electrical supply house
| got to choose what counted as an electrical qualification.
| throw10920 wrote:
| > Without these certifications, you are not an independent
| repair provider and manufacturers can refuse to allow you to do
| anything.
|
| If this is true, it doesn't seem like it's actually "right to
| repair" at all.
| delfinom wrote:
| Yep this law is just a giant handout to the industry.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if they use this law to now sue
| "uncertified" repair shops.
| ZanyProgrammer wrote:
| Yes, it's such a giant handout that Apple came out against
| it.
| throw10920 wrote:
| The implicit claim being made in this sarcastic comment
| is that it's not possible for a law to be detrimental to
| one company while unfairly favoring another.
|
| Which, of course, is obviously false when you think about
| it.
| digging wrote:
| Which major tech companies would it be good for while
| being bad for Apple? Keeping in mind that the owner of a
| device is also allowed to repair without certification.
| throw10920 wrote:
| Where did I say "major"?
| afavour wrote:
| The OP said "a giant handout to the industry". If you're
| trying to make a point that excludes all the major
| players in the tech industry then by all means go ahead
| but it isn't the conversation you joined.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| I imagine the parable of Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch
| is largely lost on today's audiences. More's the pity.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| What mechanism in this law do you propose allows them to
| sue repair shops?
| AaronM wrote:
| I read things differently. Several sections clearly reference
| the owner of a device. For example under section C part i
|
| (C) Makes parts available directly or through an authorized
| service provider to: (i) An independent repair provider or an
| owner at costs and on terms that are equivalent to the most
| favorable costs and terms at which the original equipment
| manufacturer offers the parts to an authorized service
| provider and that:
|
| the word owner shows up 17 times in the bill, and seems to
| give the same rights to an owner, that an authorized repair
| shop has.
| userbinator wrote:
| The subtle point in that sentence might be "provider OR an
| owner", as opposed to "provider AND an owner".
| rtkwe wrote:
| The law there is defining two categories manufacturers
| need to provide the parts to, changing it to AND would
| mean owners would have to be certified repair people to
| be covered.
| filoleg wrote:
| Not trying to take a dig at your comment, but for others
| struggling to parse (as much as I was) what it was trying
| to say, here is the trick that helped me - place a comma
| right before "changing" or treat that word as the start
| of a new sentence.
| olliej wrote:
| There was an entire lawsuit about the presence or absence
| of an Oxford comma in some law, possibly even in Oregon?
|
| [edit: boo it was Maine! Happily "Oxford comma lawsuit"
| is sufficient search term:
| https://www.npr.org/2017/03/23/521274657/the-10-million-
| laws...]
| rtkwe wrote:
| Very fair I don't do the best job going and clarifying my
| comments some times. They come out a bit stream of
| consciousness. I did see your comment in time to make the
| change at least.
| filoleg wrote:
| All good, no worries. I have the same tendency for
| writing singular sentences that should've honestly been
| paragraphs instead.
|
| I've got some feedback about it at work, so now I
| genuinely try to be a bit better about it. It is a bit
| easier for me to be mindful of it on HN, but, as evident
| by my comment history, I am still far from being
| consistently good about it.
|
| It is still often a "stream of consciousness written down
| as I would speak it outloud", but now I at least started
| doublechecking the punctuation (or lack of it) for any
| potential confusion it could create before hitting send.
| basil-rash wrote:
| There's tons of prior art in Law saying that And and Or
| are the same thing and can be interpreted interchangeably
| based on context.
|
| Much to the chagrin of the computer scientists who think
| it's some sort of robust formal specification for civil
| society.
| throw10920 wrote:
| > based on context
|
| Does this specific context allow for interchanging?
| AaronM wrote:
| The bill clearly defines an independent service provider
| and an owner as different entities.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| WANTED: DEAD AND ALIVE
| cutemonster wrote:
| If you look at "wanted" to be prefixed to everything in
| the list, it'd expand to: "wanted: dead, and wanted:
| alive".
|
| While this: "Wanted: dead or alive"
|
| could be interpreted as: "We haven't decided yet what we
| actually want, if it's dead, or alive, but it's one of
| those".
|
| Then it can be good to give them (the police) a call and
| ask if they have decided yet, before you go looking for
| the wanted person
| tcmart14 wrote:
| Obviously they want Schrodinger's criminal. You must get
| them before their wave function collapses.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > Much to the chagrin of the computer scientists who
| think it's some sort of robust formal specification for
| civil society.
|
| Law is actually code, just written in a language that is
| full of UB and you need to have if run on the system to
| know exactly what it does, the system being the hierarchy
| of jurisdictions.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > Law is actually code, just written in a language that
| is full of UB
|
| Which is why legalese exists. To try to limit undefined
| behavior by being extremely verbose to cut out any
| loopholes.
|
| Like...imagine a kid jumping on their bed. Mom says "Stop
| jumping on the bed!" and the kids stops. Comes back to
| the kid's room later, kid is jumping on the bed again,
| tells the kid to stop. Kid says "I'm not jumping, I'm
| hopping!" and goes into a diatribe about the difference
| between jumping and hopping, mom says to stop hopping and
| leaves. Goes back again later, kid is STILL jumping on
| the bed, and mom is angry! "You said no jumping or
| hopping, I'm not doing either, I'm bouncing!"
|
| Eventually the mom has to say something like "Do not
| jump, hop, bounce, spring, leap, or otherwise propel
| yourself upwards or laterally from the bed, mattress, or
| any other part of furniture intended for sleeping".
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Great example.
|
| And then it goes on even further, because she did not
| say, that the kid must never "propel themselves upwards
| or laterally from the bed", and only stopped that action
| in that moment ...
| rolph wrote:
| https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=4AyjKgz9tKg [video]
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| That's what I'm saying. It looks like _you_ can repair
| _your_ device. But you can 't repair devices for anyone
| else without a mountain of certifications.
|
| They're going to kill the independent repair industry.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| > They're going to kill the independent repair industry.
|
| This bill does not kill anything that is not already
| dead.
| hiatus wrote:
| It's one thing to fix things for yourself, and a whole
| other kind of thing to hold yourself out to the public as
| an expert in something. Kind of like how you can defend
| yourself in court but not someone else unless you are a
| lawyer. Though I would be surprised if the law were
| written such that you couldn't repair someone else's
| device, so long as you did not receive compensation for
| it.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| So as a non-certified repairer, you have to offer a city
| tour around the block, at a ridiculously high price, and
| then repair the device at no additional cost. All a
| matter of perspective.
| godelski wrote:
| > without a mountain of certifications.
|
| It's not a mountain of certificates, you just need one of
| many different options.
|
| They explicitly mention A+ which I assume is the CompTIA
| one.[0] Yeah, I'm not going to say it doesn't suck to
| have to pay $250, but there are free practice exams[1].
| Here, I even took a screenshot of their sample
| questions[2] there are things like Which
| of the following password choices increases the chance
| that a brute force attack will succeed? A.
| Dictionary words B. Special characters C.
| Long passwords D. Capital letters
|
| I'm okay verifying that someone has this basic level of
| competence. I would be surprised if any given Hacker News
| user couldn't pass one of these tests without studying.
| You need like a 78%...
|
| But let's be real, if you're repairing for a friend, you
| just fucking order the stuff for them and put in their
| name and info (with their permission of course). The only
| "for anyone else" part that requires certs is if you're
| operating a business. I think you all are blowing this
| part out of proportion. Mountains out of mole hills. I
| know it is the internet and we like to complain without
| knowing what we're complaining about, but come on...
|
| [0] https://www.comptia.org/certifications/a
|
| [1] https://www.comptia.org/training/resources/practice-
| tests
|
| [2] https://imgur.com/a/X1ajlAy
| pierat wrote:
| Well, it's the same state that won't "permit" a non-certified
| engineer from recording and noting the time on a stoplight is
| outside of law. (Note: he won a first amendment lawsuit, and
| the state body used his formula in the end)
|
| https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-makes-
| history-w...
|
| So yeah, when I see verbiage about certifications like this
| as a barrier to repair electronics, it's pure protectionism
| and the state impeding actual ownership rights over whatever
| this crap is.
|
| (Put bluntly, my hardware is mine. If I want to take it to
| someone else for repair, that's 100% on me and my property
| rights to decide that. 'CerTiFicAtIoN', especially with the
| shit company or govt in question should have no say on who
| can or cant fix MY hardware.)
| AaronM wrote:
| If you read the bill, they clearly differentiate between a
| service provider and an owner. The bill does not require an
| owner to be certified to purchase parts, manuals, tools or
| make repairs. It does require the manufacture to make those
| things available to both.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| So in theory I could buy the manuals, tools, and spare
| parts, and bring them to Chuck over there who runs an
| unaccredited repair shop? That doesn't seem awful.
| zarzavat wrote:
| The contention is whether or not you can fix someone
| else's device without a certification. If you can only
| fix your own device then that's useless to 90% of people
| who are not technically adept enough to do it.
|
| When I want to get a battery replaced I take my device to
| the repair shop and they replace the battery. I don't ask
| them if they are "certified". If they break something the
| liability is on them. Every single repair shop I've ever
| been to offers a warranty on their repair.
| TylerE wrote:
| You mean those actual businesses with business licenses?
| Yeah, they're fine.
|
| The guy ipersting out of The back of his car at a flea
| market?
| pierat wrote:
| Who exactly certifies a repair shop???
|
| The state, the company, or some 3rd party independent
| org?
| AaronM wrote:
| If you read the bill it states that a shop must
| "Possesses a valid and unexpired certification that
| demonstrates that the person has the technical
| capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely
| and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment in
| accordance with widely accepted standards, such as a
| Wireless Industry Service Excellence Certification, an A+
| certification from the Computing Technology Industry
| Association, a National Appliance Service Technician
| Certification or another certification that an original
| equipment manufacturer accepts as evidence that the
| person can perform safe, secure and reliable repairs to
| consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment
| manufacturer makes or sells".
|
| The bill also requires that a manufacturer does not
| "impose a substantial condition, obligation or
| restriction that is not reasonably necessary to enable an
| independent repair provider or an owner to diagnose,
| maintain, repair or update consumer electronic equipment
| that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells"
| chalst wrote:
| It also could be misused by Apple.
| godelski wrote:
| They're just saying you need like a CompTIA certificate and
| you can't just be some rando. But mind you, it also includes
| anything YOU own, so if someone is able to act on your behalf
| that's good enough too. Getting one of those certs to set up
| shop isn't that hard. Probably just to prevent people from
| mass ordering parts and redistributing.
| cortesoft wrote:
| The very next sentence says:
|
| > You can be just an average person repairing your own
| device, in which case the manufacturer must work with you.
| WesternWind wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you are parsing that
| correctly according to legal canons of construction. Generally
| all language in a law must be considered relevant, and or
| implies a disjunctive list. Finally permissive language like
| such as grant discretion.
|
| https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring...
|
| So the language says "...in accordance with widely accepted
| standards, such as..." and lists stuff like A+ and WISE certs.
| The per the OEM standards is probably best undrstood as
| modifying the or another certification, so I think the language
| you are referring to is allowing an additional certification
| that the OEM considers valid.
|
| It's unclear whether that means it counts as a widely accepted
| standard, or is allowed even if it's not a widely accepted
| standard, but pretty sure it's understood as modifying the last
| antecedent, rather than the clause as a whole in a way that
| eliminates the widely accepted standard portion..
|
| It would require ignoring the widely accepted standard language
| and several other departures from the canons of construction to
| reasonably have the interpretation you use.
|
| The language could be cleaner like they could use either and
| two sub clauses, but it doesn't need to be.
|
| "Possesses a valid and unexpired certification that
| demonstrates that the person has the technical capabilities and
| competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair
| consumer electronic equipment in accordance with widely
| accepted standards, such as a Wireless Industry Service
| Excellence Certification, an A+ certification from the
| Computing Technology Industry Association, a National Appliance
| Service Technician Certification or another certification that
| an original equipment manufacturer accepts as evidence that the
| person can perform safe, secure and reliable repairs to
| consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment
| manufacturer makes or sells."
| passwordoops wrote:
| If that's the case then Apple must have been lobbying for show
| or misdirection
| da_chicken wrote:
| > _The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely
| hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections
| with approximately zero indentation._
|
| This is normal for legislation. The problem is that fairly
| often they end up with subsectioning so deep that you're
| running into the right margin -- I got about six levels deep --
| so they simply don't do it. However, it's still standard to
| produce bills in PDF.
|
| It does get easier with practice, but I still find myself
| copying and pasting into a text editor to reformat it. It
| actually is a helpful exercise just to read the law.
|
| It's similar to reading a really long SQL query. Nobody formats
| them the way you prefer, so format them as you read and you'll
| force yourself to read the query with enough attention to
| understand it. It's simply the best way to read the things.
|
| > _Anyway, as far as I can tell, this law defines an
| independent repair provider as someone with a valid and
| unexpired certification demonstrating that they have the
| "technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely,
| securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment" and
| that the manufacturer is allowed to decide which certifications
| they trust._
|
| That's true, but it also says:
|
| "An original equipment manufacturer shall make available to an
| owner or an independent repair provider on fair and reasonable
| terms any documentation, tool, part or other device or
| implement that the original equipment manufacturer makes
| available to an authorized service provider for the purpose of
| diagnosing, maintaining, repairing or updating consumer
| electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer
| makes or sells and that is sold or used in this state."
|
| The critical bit is that _they have to supply owners, too_.
|
| "Fair and reasonable terms" means:
|
| A) Makes documentation available at no charge [except cost to
| prep and print]
|
| B) Makes tools for diagnosing, maintaining, repairing or
| updating consumer electronic equipment available at no charge
| and without impeding access to the tools or the efficient and
| cost-effective use of the tools [except cost to prep and ship]
|
| C) Makes parts available directly or through an authorized
| service provider to independent repair providers or an owner at
| costs and on terms that are equivalent to the most favorable
| costs and terms at which the original equipment manufacturer
| offers the parts to an authorized service provider [with a
| bunch of limitations that try to ensure the OEM can't cheat].
| Oh, and [there's limtations that authorized service providers
| have to be fair and reasonable to owners and independent repair
| providers, too].
|
| AND, they can no longer use parts pairing to prevent third
| party replacement parts.
|
| So:
|
| 1. An owner has a right to documentation at cost
|
| 2. An owner has a right to tools at cost
|
| 3. An owner has a right to replacement parts
|
| 4. Replacement parts going forward (essentially) can't employ
| parts pairing.
|
| So, yeah the manufacturer doesn't have to have an authorized
| service provider, and doesn't have to support independent
| repair services. BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO OFFER DOC, TOOLS, AND
| PARTS.
|
| Oh, and if the OEM doesn't have any authorized service
| providers, then the OEM _is_ the authorized service provider.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > Anyway, as far as I can tell, this law defines an independent
| repair provider as someone with a valid and unexpired
| certification demonstrating that they have the "technical
| capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and
| reliably repair consumer electronic equipment" and that the
| manufacturer is allowed to decide which certifications they
| trust.
|
| What obligates Apple (or anyone) to trust ANY certification?
| bobim wrote:
| So next phone is going to be a FairPhone. Some companies are
| playing the game, vote with your wallet.
| dangus wrote:
| If they supported the US it would be a lovely option. I'm
| personally just not buying a smartphone that isn't being tested
| on US networks.
| bobim wrote:
| The 4 seems to be available. 5 not yet.
| dangus wrote:
| Even the 4 being available through some kind of weird but
| official third party is kind of off to me. I really don't
| understand how they haven't prioritized the US market by
| now. It is probably the market that spends the most on
| phones.
| digging wrote:
| > vote with your wallet.
|
| In other words, do nothing of any impact.
| bobim wrote:
| it's just that it's the only lever you have at hand that is
| actually wired to something.
| hedora wrote:
| People on this forum would likely have much more impact by
| writing + hosting an open-source SPA that replaces a
| proprietary phone app. Starter project:
|
| https://www.weather.gov/documentation/services-web-api
| sircastor wrote:
| There's a lot about right to repair that's important. One thing
| I'm curious about is how "certified" correlates with "how we want
| you to fix it"
|
| Apples approach has often been at a module level: replace the
| logic board, replace the battery, etc. Board repair houses often
| operate at the component level: replace a damaged chip.
|
| In the case of the latter, access to schematics and board layout
| makes this possible, and I'm sure Apple (and everyone else) has
| zero interest in making these available. Likewise with custom
| parts. Modules, but not chips.
| UberFly wrote:
| I don't understand who hands out the certifications. Apple?
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > Apples approach has often been at a module level: replace the
| logic board, replace the battery, etc. Board repair houses
| often operate at the component level: replace a damaged chip.
|
| With a VERY liberal view of "module". I had an MBA with a
| damaged battery charging circuit. Battery was fine. Computer
| was fine on AC. Just couldn't get current to battery. Oh, okay,
| few hundred bucks?
|
| "The estimate to repair is $850..."
|
| Followed rapidly, "Do you want to take a look at the new MBAs
| and maybe we look at you getting into something upgraded
| instead?"
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| Some more discussion last week:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39606952
| chalst wrote:
| -> But it also takes aim at "parts pairing," or the practice of
| preventing you from replacing device parts without the approval
| of a company or its restrictive software. Apple, which routinely
| uses this practice to try and monopolize repair, lobbied
| extensively against the Oregon bill. As usual, under the (false)
| claim that eliminating parts pairing would put public safety and
| security at risk:
|
| -> "We remain very concerned about the risk to consumers imposed
| by the broad parts-pairing restrictions in this bill," John
| Perry, principal secure repair architect for Apple, said at a
| legislative hearing last month."
|
| There was a time when interpreting the "risk to consumers" as a
| risk of being prevented from gouging consumers would be cynical.
| Now I guess something like that occurred to the lawyers.
| hedora wrote:
| It does sound like this means it's now easier to get a touch
| screen, embed a tap logger in it, and then swap someone else's
| screen with it. (Similarly, for the camera module, etc, etc.)
|
| A better approach would be to force Apple to allow the device
| owner to pair parts (third party or not), and for Apple to
| provide a list of authorized non-OEM parts to anyone that was
| considering buying a used phone.
|
| Also, I wonder what this does to the anti-theft mechanisms.
| Before touch id, basically nobody set screen passwords, and
| phones were stolen at extremely high rates. After that, and
| because a stolen iPhone is marked as such and won't work with
| Apple services, phone theft dropped to almost zero.
|
| If Apple's not allowed to prevent the pairing of the stolen
| parts in Oregon, I'm guessing it will lead to a black market
| industry there, where people launder stolen phone parts into
| refurbished phones by mixing them with parts from broken
| phones.
| dns_snek wrote:
| The point of module-level pairing is to make every module is
| identifiable, correct? Furthermore, these devices are only
| usable when connected to the internet.
|
| IF their goal was merely to prevent theft, they could achieve
| that goal by simply blacklisting individual components when a
| device is reported stolen. Apple knows precise serial numbers
| of every paired component installed in that device, they just
| need to host a database of stolen parts that devices could
| query on every boot and on a set interval.
|
| Of course, that's not their true goal, so they treat everyone
| like thieves in the hopes that they buy a new device instead.
| threeseed wrote:
| What happens if that service is down. Or if a state actor
| decides to DDOS it to cause havoc.
|
| Of course since this process needs to access networking
| stack etc it's going to be trivial to bypass if the device
| is jailbroken. Which means that users buying stolen phones
| need to be informed not to upgrade the OS otherwise their
| device is bricked. E-waste implications would be
| staggering.
| dns_snek wrote:
| Nothing happens if the service is down. They could just
| as easily DDoS other Apple services, most of them would
| cause actual havoc if they were down - iMessage, iCloud,
| Apple Pay, Sign in with Apple, etc.
|
| If the device is jailbroken then all bets are off
| regardless? If you can bypass the theft database check,
| you can bypass the current parts pairing check, too.
|
| > E-waste implications would be staggering.
|
| Is that meant to support your argument? That's the status
| quo.
| threeseed wrote:
| If the service is down then how would the validation
| happen. Or if you just allow stolen components to be
| accepted whilst the phone is unvalidated then state
| security services will just DDOS the service. They would
| love to be able to swap out a screen and gain access to
| the password for journalists, dissidents etc.
|
| And you can't bypass the current pairing check since it
| is happening before the OS is launched.
| dns_snek wrote:
| I'm sorry but that's just a fairytale. Nobody is going to
| go through a 10 step process that hinges on someone's
| phone being stolen and returned without their knowledge
| while successfully pulling off a DDoS attack against one
| of the most powerful corporations on the planet that's
| already facing constant cyber threats.
|
| Extremely relevant: https://xkcd.com/538/
|
| They'll just use a 0-day exploit or a $5 wrench.
| tadfisher wrote:
| You mean like every other device in the world? Should Mazda
| be forcing me to buy a Mazda OEM or OEM-approved car battery
| through DRM? It would prevent theft of my car to steal its
| parts, but it would also have the curiously beneficial side
| effect of massive profit.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| You mean like how California bans installation of used
| catalytic converters? And how that law was passed
| explicitly to cut down on converter theft?
|
| You will never guess what California requires to be
| inscribed on every converter sold in the state.
| concinds wrote:
| See iFixit explain why parts pairing doesn't help reduce
| theft:
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/91648/banning-parts-pairing-
| wont...
|
| If Apple disagrees with iFixit and has genuine reasons to
| believe this will compromise security, they can share their
| reasoning publicly and let people judge. So far I don't think
| they have.
| TylerE wrote:
| As someone who was mugged for his phone about a decade ago, I
| am very very very much in favor of Apple continuing to require
| this. It is very much pro consumer on the whole.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| - Allow to remove the pairing after a timed delay, say 30
| minutes
|
| - Require authentication including a second factor to
| initiate and confirm the removal
|
| Assuming a mugger isn't likely to sit there for 30 minutes
| given the chance someone could walk by. If this is the only
| way to remove the part such that it can be paired with
| another device, doesn't it solve both problems? I get the
| feeling Apple is being a bit disingenuous with their "risk to
| consumers" claims.
| TylerE wrote:
| Look into the iPhone unlock scam networks. They're using
| blackmail tactics as it is.
|
| Anyway, no, the mugger isn't going to try to unlock it
| while holding you at gun point. They'll rip and run, and
| sell it for $20 to a fence who will pass it up the chain.
| Usually they end up in other countries.
|
| Similar in concept to the groups that will take cars stolen
| in the US, grind off all the VIN plates and other
| identifying marks, fake paperwork, and then sell them into
| markets in Africa and the Middle East where the buyers
| don't ask questions, and government officials are easily
| and publically bribed.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| > drugs come in; cars go out
|
| How feasible would it be to tighten up port security to
| stop the export of stolen cars?
| chalst wrote:
| The mugging scenario shows that there are risks associated
| with pairing removal, but the suggestion by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF
| [1] seems to deal with this particular issue.
|
| Are there any other risks?
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39707586 (in reply
| to you)
| pcdoodle wrote:
| Apple behaviour has invoked the "pause button" on my purchasing
| of new hardware from them.
|
| Nobody wants to build on your platform if you're a tyrant.
| RussianCow wrote:
| > Nobody wants to build on your platform if you're a tyrant.
|
| [citation needed]
|
| In practice, I think people mostly follow the money and
| idealism barely factors into it.
| dahdum wrote:
| I don't think bills like this will matter in several years for
| phones, unless they somehow start forcing manufacturers to
| _design for_ manual repair. The end game for all these
| manufacturers is a phone assembled, repaired, and disassembled
| for recycling entirely by machine. I believe they already do this
| for the recycling.
|
| I support right to repair in general, and I'm not particularly
| opposed to this bill, but it seems a bit hopeless in the long
| run.
| blkhawk wrote:
| lol no thas not the end goal because its a net negative to
| repair stuff no matter how cheap and easy you can do it. Every
| repaired last years model is a this years model not sold.
|
| Manufacturers try to pretend that they are pro repair but very
| few are really.
| blkhawk wrote:
| anybody who has manual manipulators and a manual can repair a
| manually repairable device. A device that needs special tools
| to break open or take apart increases the likelyhood that its
| just tossed and this years new model is bought instead.
| dahdum wrote:
| The end goal is automation and functionality regardless of
| how difficult it makes manual repair. Almost nobody values
| manual repair capability when purchasing, so why would
| manufacturers?
|
| Consumers just want easy repair/replace when it happens, and
| the more resilient the product the less they care.
| dns_snek wrote:
| Even if they don't explicitly design for manual repair, forcing
| them to publicly provide schematics, individual components
| (directly or through an agreement with their supplier), and any
| software required to successfully complete the repair would be
| a big step in the right direction.
| jetti wrote:
| Most of the talk seems to be around Apple, which makes sense
| since they were opponents of the bill but I am more interested to
| see how this affects game console manufacturers. I had a longer
| post I had typed out about how console manufacturers have
| prevented non-authorized peripherals in the past with parts
| pairing and I was curious how that would affect the consoles
| going forward. I re-read the parts pairing section to make sure I
| read it correctly and then stumbled upon the section that refers
| to what the parts pairing restriction does not apply to and it is
| clearly written out that it does not apply to video game
| consoles. I find it very interesting that this applies to smart
| phones but not to video game consoles at all.
| dml2135 wrote:
| The video game console question is very interesting. I think a
| lot of right-to-repair advocates, right now, are fine with
| carving out an exception, for a few reasons.
|
| One, video game consoles have no pretense to being generalized
| computing devices. They are more similar to appliances, and
| while that appliance status is arguable, they are definitely
| closer to that right now than smartphones.
|
| Two, people have nostalgia for video game consoles. They like
| the packaged nature of it and generally have more good will
| towards console manufacturers than computer manufacturers
| (although that part is arguable and may be changing).
|
| Three is politics. It's already hard enough to go up against
| companies like Apple to get these bills passed. You do not want
| Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo lining up to oppose you as well.
|
| With all that said though, there is no reason I can see that
| the arguments used for right to repair -- that users should
| have full control over the devices they own -- should not also
| apply to video game consoles. But doing so would mean that
| consoles are no different than PCs, and would have huge
| implications for the industry.
|
| Those lines are being blurred already with things like the
| Steam Deck and I think we're just a few years away from that
| upheaval, but it hasn't quite happened yet -- hence you see
| these carve-outs.
|
| edit: Upon rereading what I wrote I realize that I may be
| conflating right-to-repair with regulations around app stores
| and walled gardens. They're not exactly the same thing, but I
| do think they touch on the same issues of the meaning of
| ownership, which is what set me off.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > One, video game consoles have no pretense to being
| generalized computing devices. They are more similar to
| appliances
|
| I repair all of my other appliances, why should this
| particular type of appliance be any different?
| shkkmo wrote:
| What happens if a company refuses to sell in Oregon, can they
| skirt the law?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Oregon's laws can only apply to products sold in Oregon.
| mrinterweb wrote:
| I wonder about this too. People would probably buy through 3rd
| parties (Amazon, etc). I don't know if the law would restrict
| Amazon and other vendors to not sell non-compliant devices in
| Oregon.
|
| Thing is, it is not just Oregon. Massachusetts, Colorado, New
| York, Minnesota, Maine and California all have right to repair
| laws. It is not possible for companies to remain competitive
| and not sell in those states.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| Until recently you couldn't pump your own gas in Oregon
| mattbillenstein wrote:
| Recently bought a Framework laptop - their mission is easily
| repairable diy hardware with good software (Linux!) support.
|
| Still using an iPhone though - it is a bit crazy how expensive
| these have gotten and how repairs can be so expensive.
| dependsontheq wrote:
| I think it's hilarious that a lot of people here talk about the
| bureaucracy in Europe and then immediately switch to specific
| state laws regulating technology for one state.
| lupusreal wrote:
| The people who oppose EU regulation of tech probably also
| oppose this. The people who support that probably also support
| this. The mistake you're making is _" everybody except me is
| one person."_
| tantalor wrote:
| Letting owners repair their own devices is great and should align
| well with existing warranties for tech stuff.
|
| The other day, a volume button on my bluetooth speaker stopped
| working and I could tell it was damaged so I opened it up and
| found the circuit board supporting the button was snapped. When I
| initially approached the manufacturer for a warranty, they
| declined because they assumed I had taken the device to a non-
| approved repair shop, which would void the warranty. When I
| explained, no I'm the owner (here's the receipt), and I opened it
| up to check for damage, then they fulfilled the warranty no
| problem.
| justinzollars wrote:
| Easy solution. Just stop selling new devices in Oregon.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-14 23:00 UTC)