[HN Gopher] Bypassing regulatory locks, hacking AirPods and Fara...
___________________________________________________________________
Bypassing regulatory locks, hacking AirPods and Faraday cages
Author : rithvikvibhu
Score : 162 points
Date : 2024-11-12 18:50 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lagrangepoint.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (lagrangepoint.substack.com)
| josephcsible wrote:
| Every time a story like this comes out, it makes me sad how much
| time and effort Apple spends on making the world a worse place.
| It couldn't have been easy or cheap for them to add all these
| antifeatures.
| sneak wrote:
| It would be illegal for them to sell AirPods in many countries
| without these lockouts. The sale of medical devices is heavily
| regulated in most places.
|
| Headphones: legal. Hearing aids: not.
|
| Blame the government, not the company that's following the
| rules laid down.
| nixosbestos wrote:
| Completely ignorant question, but what does it come down to?
| What if I released this feature but didn't call it "hearing
| aid", nor positioned it as medical device?
|
| Is a phone with optical zoom, a "vision-enhancing device" and
| regulated like eye wear?
| sneak wrote:
| Does it look like a duck? Does it quack like duck?
|
| In-ear devices with speaker and mic that look like hearing
| aids that perform hearing aid function for those with
| hearing loss? Hearing aids.
|
| Phones, that look nothing like glasses or contacts, and
| don't serve the same purpose? Obviously not.
|
| Don't be silly. Judges aren't.
| nixosbestos wrote:
| I really wasn't trying to be silly. I feel like other
| medical things in the US are regulated differently based
| purely on how they're marketed. How about an Apple Vision
| Pro with optical zoom on the exterior cameras?
| kube-system wrote:
| > I feel like other medical things in the US are
| regulated differently based purely on how they're
| marketed.
|
| They aren't. Different classes of medical or medical-
| adjacent products in the US have to be careful how they
| market so they aren't making claims that they are not
| allowed to make, but the absence of those claims alone
| doesn't make a regulated device unregulated.
| luqtas wrote:
| we could all use some civil disobedience for the good of
| our kind;
|
| "The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to
| do at any time what I think right."
| userbinator wrote:
| _In-ear devices with speaker and mic that look like
| hearing aids that perform hearing aid function for those
| with hearing loss? Hearing aids._
|
| By that definition every TWS with transparency mode and
| parametric EQ is a hearing aid.
| NightMKoder wrote:
| Presumably depends on the country and the laws. Keep in
| mind that Apple considers this a new interesting use case -
| not a killer feature for AirPods. They wouldn't risk AirPod
| sales with a gray interpretation of the law.
| K0balt wrote:
| Regulated devices have very specific definitions like is
| represented as O, or does x or z and a and b, or x and b.
| Things like that. The definition typically hinges on very
| specific parameters and ALSO what it is called. That way no
| one can sell an inert plug as a "hearing aid", and no one
| can sell a hearing aids as "conversation enhancing devices
| " to evade certification requirements if they meet the bar
| feature-wise to be a hearing aid.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| A malfunctioning hearing aid/earbud can potentially cause
| permanent hearing damage. Unless it explodes, a misbehaving
| phone can't damage your vision.
| NavinF wrote:
| Non sequitur. You could say that about any high quality
| set of headphones since they're capable of much higher
| power output than hearing aids.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| I'm not saying it makes sense, but that's the idea.
| Retr0id wrote:
| It's still a non-sequitur because regular earphones are
| not subject to such regulations.
| kube-system wrote:
| No, medical devices are regulated because society demands
| a certain degree of certainty from those who claim to
| treat medical issues. Most societies don't want it to be
| legal to sell snake oil to vulnerable people suffering
| from a health issue.
|
| There are many dangerous unregulated things that can
| destroy your hearing or vision. But they don't claim to
| protect them.
| Krasnol wrote:
| Why should anyone blame the government when it's obvious that
| Apple cared about those regulations and filed the paperwork
| in some countries but not in others?
|
| OP is still right here. The argument stands.
| enjaydee wrote:
| Blame governments for regulating medical devices? You're
| going to need a better argument than that. This is entirely
| on Apple not applying for regulatory approval.
| kube-system wrote:
| Is that even the case? Did they not apply anywhere else? Do
| they even _qualify_ anywhere else? This wouldn 't even have
| been _possible_ under US law until recently.
|
| If Apple tried to do this in the past in the US, they would
| have made it illegal to buy AirPods without a prescription,
| which is obviously a regulatory nonstarter.
| elzbardico wrote:
| This is a regulatory issue, so you can stop the baseless
| hating.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Is it a regulatory issue? Could it be the hearing aid feature
| has an AI/voice recognition component trained on certain
| languages when it runs the "enhancement"? (no idea, just
| wondering, since the apple page had zero details)
| resonanttoe wrote:
| The FDA has to certify the devices for use as hearing aids
| in the U.S
|
| Other countries have similar regulatory bodies the certify
| the use of a medical device.
|
| Hearing aids (and things sold as it) are medical devices.
| Krasnol wrote:
| So what?
|
| You file the paperwork, pay for it and you get the
| certification.
|
| They decided that they won't do that in India.
|
| This is all.
|
| They even did that in Germany and the whole world know
| how much of a hassle it had to be...but Germany has a
| more significant market share and potential than India
| so....we all know it's just about the money.
| elzbardico wrote:
| It is all just about the money. Or India's government
| could have given a special waive. But Apple is a private
| company, private companies usually do things for money.
| Krasnol wrote:
| Oh yeah, please give the poor fruit company an SPECIAL
| waive so they don't have to be treated like all the
| peasant companies.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Fair enough - that certainly explains the situation in
| the US, where they _were_ allowed. It just seemed
| surprising to me that every country in the world has
| medical device certification for anything that calls
| itself a hearing aid, forcing apple to restrict it to
| just 2 or 3 countries. You 'd think in some it would be
| linked to what's covered by state medical care, or sold
| with a particular emblem or... Actually, couldn't find
| the rules for india at all, but probably 'cause I was
| searching in english.
|
| But maybe it was just easier for them to block everyone
| by default pending lawyer review of each country, one at
| a time.
|
| ... I wonder also why they couldn't sell it as a _non_
| medical "hearing enhancement" with a disclaimer that it
| had no medical certification in your country, but perhaps
| that would also invite lawsuits.
| NavinF wrote:
| That would definitely invite lawsuits. Do you think
| competitors who sell hearing aids for $2500 today would
| allow Apple to sell their $200 device without medical
| device certification?
| observationist wrote:
| Medical Device certification is regulatory capture.
| There's no good reason for it except to exploit a source
| of cash. Hearing Aid companies are among the most evil on
| the planet.
| kristofferR wrote:
| No good reasons for medical device certification?
|
| That's absurd, be glad that machines like that are tested
| to work as described. The certification process is often
| flawed and should be improved, but letting random people
| build medical devices for sale in their garages and sell
| them without certification is way more flawed than the
| current solution.
| observationist wrote:
| Hearing aids should not be qualified as medical devices.
| There are devices that should be. You are capable of
| following sensible instruction and operating an audio
| equalizer. Audiologists are capable of existing in a
| world where interaction with them is voluntary and it's
| not going to lead to terrible mishaps. Hearing Aids can
| be dangerous, especially at the severe to profound levels
| of amplification, but that can be trivially handled in
| software and manuals.
| observationist wrote:
| In the US, and nearly everywhere else this type of
| hearing assist tech is sold, the Hearing Aid cartel is
| responsible for lobbying and influencing and bribing
| officials to maintain a stranglehold on their cash cow.
| Retired, elderly people with extra cash get screwed over
| with markup rates of 40,000% or more (yes, that's the
| right number of zeros.) Hearing aid technology, along
| with DSPs and specialized high quality, miniaturized
| sound technology, has received full benefits of economies
| of scale. These devices cost $5 or less per unit mass
| produced, but because of the "medical device"
| classification and the overreach of the FDA, people who
| need these devices cannot afford them.
|
| Insurance won't cover it. Until you're completely
| disabled or retired, you're stuck paying for hearing aids
| out of pocket. $2500 or more, apiece.
|
| The patent situation around hearing aid features in
| airpods and other headsets is the responsibility of the
| hearing cartel - the 5 largest hearing aid companies that
| collude to maintain this status quo, prevent meaningful
| competition, innovation, or alleviation of the plight of
| the hearing disabled.
|
| These people are preying on some of the most vulnerable
| people worldwide and the US government is complicit in
| it. There is no valid, rational basis in fact for the
| medical device classification or the rationalizations
| used to justify it. People "might" damage their hearing?
| Liability disclaimers work for literally every other
| possible product. Maybe, just maybe, people are capable
| of adjusting an equalizer on their own, and those who
| can't or don't want to, can go to an audiologist. Dialing
| in hearing aids isn't particularly difficult, and the
| dangers are obvious and easy to avoid.
|
| This is a world where people go to concerts and make
| other decisions injurious to their hearing health, and
| most of the time, the bands aren't required to disclaim
| liability or even notify of the potential danger, but if
| you want to correct your hearing, you're shit outta luck
| unless you pay through the nose.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > There is no valid, rational basis in fact for the
| medical device classification or the rationalizations
| used to justify it.
|
| I wouldn't be that certain. The situation with stuff like
| fakes and knock-offs is already bad enough as it is - at
| least for anything classified as "medical devices", be it
| condoms or hearing aids, the threat of the law is keeping
| bad actors reasonably at bay. You go and buy a hearing
| aid, you can at least rely on the thing and its delivery
| chain having been through multiple very experienced hands
| checking everything on it.
|
| Additionally, it's about stability. People's lives can
| matter with hearing aids - of course, users are
| responsible for keeping their batteries charged, but at
| least a hearing aid should be reasonably well enough made
| to not randomly lock up and leave someone without
| adequate hearing in a situation where they're operating
| some machinery.
|
| I agree that the price margins on medical products are
| ridiculous and even the additional certification and
| paperwork doesn't warrant even a tenth of the price tag.
| But dismantling the regulatory framework around medical
| stuff comes with _serious_ side issues.
| observationist wrote:
| Fake hearing aids, or dangerous ones, would get rooted
| out quick. The function is the test of quality. There are
| laws that hold companies liable for material and actual
| harms caused by their products. There's no need for the
| FDA to be standing in the middle of this industry - there
| is no value add. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. I have looked. I
| have tried to steelman its presence in the regulation of
| hearing devices for more than a decade. Nothing holds up
| to scrutiny. The closest you get to a plausibly
| legitimate reason for regulation is when it comes to
| children, but _even_ then, it 's flimsy as hell.
|
| There are zero legitimate reasons among the swathes of
| paperwork put forth by this cartel. They are irredeemably
| corrupt and morally bankrupt exploiters of the elderly
| and disabled, and the method by which they accomplished
| that was regulatory capture via the FDA medical device
| classification. Given that as a platform, they perform a
| series of manipulative maneuvers and establish a
| bureaucratic framework, self sustaining, given the color
| and flavor of legitimacy with the government's stamp of
| authenticity.
|
| They've been presenting Audiology programs as a
| legitimate medical field, when these are effectively
| sound system equalizer knob twiddlers in doctor costumes.
| Yes, there are legitimate medical professionals who go
| into ENT and such, but a large majority of audiologists
| are essentially salespeople for one of the 5 HA cartel
| members, whether they realize it or not.
|
| They're getting away with a gross and vicious
| exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people among
| us; so no, there is no valid, rational basis for the
| medical device categorization and regulation by the FDA
| of hearing aids. The disability can absolutely destroy
| someone's quality of life, and this is an insidious and
| evil market. But hey, it's Starkey and Oticon, they do
| good things and charity for kids, right?
| miki123211 wrote:
| Is the certification required for things _labeled as_
| hearing aids, or for things that perform hearing-aid-like
| functions?
|
| Could you sell a "heering eyd" or an "in-ear sound
| amplifier that lets ornithology enthusiasts hear faraway
| birds better", which incidentally functions as a (non-
| insurance-covered) hearing aid, at least for those who
| can Reddit?
| alistairSH wrote:
| In the US, it's a bit of a mix.
|
| There are ~3 categories of hearing devices in the US...
| 1. Prescription hearing aids - go to audiologist, pay
| $$$$$$ for devices 2. OTC hearing aids - AirPod Pro etc -
| less money 3. PSAP - Personal Sound Amplification Product
|
| In theory, from top to bottom, you loose features and
| complexity. But, I haven't been able to find a good
| summary of technical requirements for each tier of
| device, just vague language.
|
| Very generally, PSAP is a "dumb" amplifier - all
| frequencies get amplified - often used by hunters and
| bird watchers to hear animals.
|
| What I can't figure out is the difference in requirements
| between OTC and prescpription - is there some feature
| that Apple CANNOT deliver OTC that a prescription device
| may?
| observationist wrote:
| The only real constraint now is volume - there's still a
| hard db limit of 111 db because of the technicalities of
| medical device categorization. Software and hardware
| patents are entwined with the medical device nonsense and
| the hearing cartel is incredibly litigious. They make
| FAANG look like playground bullies if they feel their
| territory is being infringed on, and have an absurd
| breadth and depth of patents covering every possible
| iteration and permutation of audio technology they can
| possibly get away with.
| rodgerd wrote:
| > It just seemed surprising to me that every country in
| the world has medical device certification for anything
| that calls itself a hearing aid,
|
| "Trusting the FDA" instead of having your own evaluation
| seems a lot less foolish now that Americans have decided
| to put a guy in charge of the FDA who wants to get rid of
| vaccines.
| seany wrote:
| Who cares? Call the feature something else, enable it
| everywhere and move on.
| NavinF wrote:
| > That would definitely invite lawsuits. Do you think
| competitors who sell hearing aids for $2500 today would
| allow Apple to sell their $200 device without medical
| device certification?
| samatman wrote:
| So your theory is what, malice?
|
| Apple makes AirPods the cheapest hearing aids by a long shot,
| except for some customers that they hate?
|
| The problem is simple: hearing aids are regulated products, and
| countries tend to insist on individually certifying them.
| Getting the right to market AirPods as hearing aids in the US
| wasn't cheap, I'm sure.
|
| There needs to be international harmonization of these
| regulations. It isn't just hurting Apple and Apple's customers,
| it hurts everyone.
|
| Perhaps Apple has decided that it's too expensive to pass those
| regulations in certain markets, but my bet is that it just
| takes longer in the EU and India. I guess we'll see.
| Krasnol wrote:
| OP didn't say it's about hate, and why would you assume OP
| meant hate? There are many other obvious reasons. Like the
| market share for example.
|
| To hate requisites that you care enough...and that you are
| not a corporation...
| blkhawk wrote:
| Then don't bloody call it a hearing aid then in those
| countries - call it "adjusted transparent mode with
| equalizer". Stuff that coincidentally works as a hearing aid
| is not regulated as far as I can tell anyway simply because I
| never heard of a government that would confiscate an
| amplifier with an equalizer function build in as soon as
| somebody plugged headphones and a microphone into it.
| kube-system wrote:
| > It couldn't have been easy or cheap for them to add all these
| antifeatures.
|
| It was definitely cheap to add this region lock: it's a single
| `if` statement calling existing system libraries. The
| regulatory side of this is the expensive part, and it varies by
| country, and many places make it illegal for hearing aids to be
| sold over the counter no matter how much Apple wants to release
| it there. Even the US would have prohibited this feature until
| regulatory changes that happened in 2022.
| post_break wrote:
| Does this reset itself after a certain amount of time or is it
| one and done? I'd be worried about the feature being removed when
| the iPad or airpods decide they've been in India for too long.
| thel3l wrote:
| Heya! One of the authors here.
|
| Nope, its a one time thing. When the feature is enabled, a flag
| is set on the iCloud account, so you can travel anywhere and
| have it work. At the same time, a EQ profile is pushed to the
| transparency mode of the Airpods, enabling the hearing aid
| features.
|
| Once done, it sticks with the Airpods, unless you reset them.
|
| However, an interesting quirk is that if you enable this on
| someone's airpods, and _their_ device/account does not have it
| 'available', they wont be able to tweak the settings on their
| device.
| post_break wrote:
| Very cool, glad it sticks.
| pomian wrote:
| Looking forward to further write ups on faraday cages, design and
| uses. That was great what you did with the air pods.
| thel3l wrote:
| Hey! I'm Rithwik, one of the authors of the article, happy to
| answer questions etc!
| carbonguy wrote:
| Mainly just wanted to say, this is an absolutely fantastic hack
| and I loved reading about it - thank you for sharing!
|
| I guess if I have one question, it would be... what else are
| you planning to do with your new Faraday cage?
| thel3l wrote:
| Thank you for reading and the kind words! We're almost
| looking forward to this loophole being shut down to really
| make things a tad bit more challenging haha
|
| We've got some ideas for the Faraday cage--a whole bunch of
| networks research and hacking that we can do without messing
| up live systems! It's also really nice to be able to test a
| device in isolation, without worrying about whether it's
| phoning back home in some way.
| vintagedave wrote:
| Awesome article. This kind of hacking casually showing iOS app
| behavior is another world, especially because I thought they
| were so locked down. How did you get started, any
| recommendations?
|
| Since you did not end up having bought yourself a very
| expensive set of earphones, what earphones do you use -- or
| want to get?
| thel3l wrote:
| haha, I think I've got many miles to go before I'm qualified
| to answer this :')
|
| I've just been hacking away at things since I was in middle
| school, am lucky that there's some transfer. LLMs have also
| been a huge unlock--really cool to be able to try things at
| near speed of thought!
|
| > what earphones do you use -- or want to get? I'm very happy
| with my Shure Aonic 3s, a very loyal IEMs guy!
| username135 wrote:
| In the true spirit of 2600!
| enjaydee wrote:
| Maybe I missed it but did you make or buy the Faraday cage?
| thel3l wrote:
| We built it ourselves actually!
|
| The first prototype was just aluminium foil, tape and hope,
| but we wanted something more solid so we built one out of
| ndeg100 copper mesh and some 2020 aluminium extrusions!
| tumblestick wrote:
| Hi Rithwik -- great work. My Nana would have been thrilled to
| know this was possible :)
|
| If I can ask -- what program did you use to generate the code
| maps in your article?
| JSR_FDED wrote:
| Loved the article, thank you for sharing. How happy are the
| grandparents with the hearing aid functionality? Is it working
| well for them and how is the battery life?
| kristofferR wrote:
| Does anyone know what the Hearing Protection mode does? It's not
| available in Norway (or anywhere outside of NAmerica).
|
| I've used the AirPods Pro 2 as hearing protection for some stuff
| before, it works fine. Is it just due to the words ("Hearing
| Protection") which they are only allowed to use only in America
| or is it actually better than regular Pro 2 noise-cancelling?
| tzs wrote:
| > Hearing aids typically cost anywhere from [?] 50,000 to upwards
| of [?] 8L depending on the correction capability
|
| For those who don't recognize the [?] symbol it is the symbol for
| the Indian Rupee and an "L" after a number means 100,000, so [?]
| 8L is [?] 800,000.
|
| At current exchange rates that puts hearing aids in India from
| $600 to upwards of $9,500.
|
| AirPods Pro 2 are [?] 24,900 ($295).
| userbinator wrote:
| _It appears that the Hearing Aid feature is actually an equalizer
| preset that is pushed to the AirPods and will replace your
| transparency mode._
|
| Apple could've just not marketed these as "hearing aids" or used
| the medical terminology, as every other TWS with parametric EQ
| and transparency mode can do the same thing, and they wouldn't
| have the regulatory hawks going after them. They only lose the
| marketing edge, but perhaps that was a huge calculated risk.
|
| There's an incredible amount of processing power and flexibility
| in these things. Even the sub-$10 ones using the infamous JieLi
| SoCs - a 160MHz 32-bit computer in each ear. I'm surprised there
| hasn't yet been any TWS advertised with open-source firmware,
| although there's been some work in the usual Chinese (and
| Russian) communities on customisations.
| nfriedly wrote:
| > _I 'm surprised there hasn't yet been any TWS advertised with
| open-source firmware_
|
| Let me introduce you to the PineBuds Pro:
| https://pine64.com/product/pinebuds-pro-open-firmware-capabl...
| userbinator wrote:
| _User can flash in PINE64 community open firmware when
| becomes[sic] available._
|
| I did manage to find the firmware, but it says that it
| doesn't have ANC, which the factory firmware does. Good start
| nonetheless.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-12 23:00 UTC)