Be careful what you wish for though. Electronics, and software in particular, rapidly drop in reliability as the parts stray from tightly restricted boundaries and become open to anyone. "Hey, this app crashes on my phone now." Repairing a phone too wouldn't be cheap either, you'd have to have someone soldering and resoldering a very fine circuit board. I think most people would just replace it.
A single state is still a large market to pass up, and tooling costs make it impractical to manufacture different versions of things.
Even for software, the US experiences positive externalities of the GDPR and the rest of the US does from privacy laws in California and Illinois (likely others that I don't know off the top of my head)
State laws also often serve as the prototype for federal ones.
It should be federal, but this is absolutely good news.
Special exceptions are hard to deal with when you're mass producing. That's why a fair amount of the rulings made by the European Union also end up applying to North America when it comes to international businesses.
It basically means someone like Apple has to decide between not selling in Oregon at all, making special phones for Oregon, or making all of their phones not have paired parts. It's a pretty big thorn in their side, and it would only take a few more states to join in before they really have to start committing to a solution.
Looking at their account, I'd honestly bet money that they're an apple employee. Half of their posts and comments are about, and very much in favor of, Apple
This has to be one of the stupidest takes ive seen. They aren't innovating, they are making it so things break after set amounts of time, you cant repair it without massive headaches and the expense of proprietary parts, so people end up basically having to buy a new device that is either the exact same or had only a few changes to it but costs more money than the original. That's not innovation, that's just a cash grab.
I have no issue with security devices requiring some sort of approval (which should be made available to self service), but devices like the screen, camera, battery, buttons, memory/storage, ports, speakers, etc, should be allowed whether or not they are factory.
Forget the sensors, they can say it's a security related since it can display private info and their fans would defend that. You can bet they would make some excuse for almost everything and fight for it in court.
Just FYI, iPhones don't have fingerprint sensors in the screen. Older models with fingerprint sensors have a capacitive sensor in a physical home button/capacitive pad.
Newer iPhone's exclusively use FaceID for biometrics, which uses the camera array at the top of the device.
Oregon has some really great laws. Some are working well, some need adjustment.
In this case I think manufacturers will just say "not for sale in Oregon" and people in Oregon will continue to buy them. California had an advantage with it's huge market size.
Some products — like devices powered by combustion engines, medical equipment, farming equipment, HVAC equipment, video game consoles, and energy storage systems — are excluded from Oregon’s rules entirely.
It's interesting to me that Game Consoles get an exception... Not sure whats up there, other than straight up bribery lobbying.
HVAC makes sense when you consider environmental concerns (some refrigerants are really terrible pollutants).
Medical equipment, particularly equipment in public health care should be held to high standards. Authorized, properly trained repair; peoples lives depend on it.
Energy storage when attached to public infrastructure (you back-feeding the grid) can be a saftey concern for workers and the supply/load needs to be balanced to prevent damaging that infrastructure and other private equipment attached to it. Not sure preventing repair is the right move here; you can still buy and install new without oversight. Perhaps it's again a saftey concern (for the person performing repair).
Vehicles, farming or otherwise, I'm on the fence about; there's an argument to be made for public saftey/roadworthness, but I'm not sure that's enough of an argument to prevent home-repair. Again seems more to do with lobbying than anything else.
There are lots of loyal green customers who are really pissed about the ability to not be able to repair their own stuff, but yet keep buying it. (Similar to a lot of iPhone users)
Probably because they'll keep repairing it themselves anyway. Making it legal would just make it easier for them to repair it without triggering the tractor's version of DRM (can't remember what it's called).
That is getting really hard to do. Seems like someone could make a market in controllers that replace the factory ones but hook to the factory sensors.
I work for a medical device manufacturer and you are missing a important reason for that exception. Yes human lives are on the line. In addition WE (meaning my company) are responsible for finding out why it broke and how we will prevent other devices we make from breaking.
We make a device and say it will last 10 years, 2 years later it stops. We have to replace it, We have to investigate to the best of our ability, We have to report our findings to the government, if several cases happen We need to come up with a prevention for the future dailures(or prevention if severe enough). We have entire departments for this. It is our burden not the consumer and it's our burden so we have enough evidence to determine root cause and final solution so we can prevent further failures.
Don’t take my word for it. Tear into any one of the dozens of black boxes in your car and take it apart. Analyze the chips soldered on the boards. You might get lucky and find all standard chips with information available from suppliers.
Try looking at the data going across any one of the several buses transiting your vehicle. OBD is easy. The others are usually encrypted and much higher speed.
Cars are legitimately complex. Don’t just listen to the manufacturers and scoff. Look up some research into breaking the communication protocols that MB or BMW use. Compare that with GM’s newest standard. Go ahead and practice your reverse engineering skills, because these things aren’t published.
If nothing else, it increases the time to attack and own the system. Networked modules are more efficient and higher performing than old systems. This is the price of progress.
Just one example is the ECU. Old analog engines were crude and inflexible. Simple environmental changes would cause engines to run out of their efficient zones and dump more or less fuel than is appropriate for the conditions they’re experiencing. Modern engines take pressures and temperatures (from several locations) into account, along with throttle desired by the user and calculated load to change the engine parameters on the fly. This is why a modern Mustang can hit 30 mpg on the highway with 500hp and the 80’s model struggles with 20mpg and less power than a current Civic.
These ECUs can be the difference between safely driving and unsafe unintended acceleration into a truck in front of you. We haven’t seen any attacks which turn ordinary occupied vehicles into missiles… yet. I have absolutely no doubt that we will experience one in the next 10 years. Encryption and security may be the difference between this being a rare occurrence conducted by powerful nation state actors and something script kiddies can perform with a laptop and a weekend.
Sounds like the problem is lack of regulations, not people repairing their own stuff. We are letting companies create unmanageable products then blaming owners for trying to take ownership. Encryption is a solved problem, and doesn't require a black box to be secure, in fact is more secure when it isn't. And this isn't the first time that Cara breaking on the road a risk. If someone put after market breaks on their car and they failed, people would die too, yet somehow we allowed that. Car manufacturers are being allowed to make anti-consumer decisions and are blaming us for them.
I’m not getting the feeling that you actually know what you’re talking about.
This isn’t a discussion about encryption, it’s about pairing modules. Encryption is absolutely necessary and is already used widely across the industry. It might not be transparent (open, published standards), but it’s there.
Illegitimate and low quality parts have always been a concern. You don’t seem like you are a car enthusiast, so go on any car forum or facebook group and ask about some fake wheels or eBay special turbos. You’ll get roasted and start a real stupid discussion on if knockoffs are great for the money or if you’ll die in a fiery wreck. These are simple physical objects which you can fake by casting a mould and pouring something vaguely metallic inside. Fake car electronics can be cheaply remade in a similar fashion. How do you know if a replacement ECU is actually taking in one of the hundreds of datapoints in order to calculate the exact fuel trim to safely use in the millisecond you’re polling? How do you know if your rebuilt or replacement transmission is equipped with the proper logic modules to not cause you to drop into first on the highway, causing you to destroy your engine and probably cause a serious accident?
How do you know the manufacturer-supplied module is doing the work it's supposed to without being able to verify it yourself? Boeing aircraft are having similar problems; if an industry that regulated is having issues, what is going to stop vehicle manufacturers from doing the same?
Give us the diagnostic tools and the parts. Operating with zero trust and verifying everything before and after install is the only way to be sure.
The problem with the black box approach is not only does it mess with right to repair, competition, and home build jobs, but even people who make cars! I've literally been to talks in car manufacturing events where a speaker from a large car manufacturing give talks about how hard it is making life for them. Does that car manufacturer do anything different? Nope. Whole culture is infected with "my secrets" thinking which makes everyone's life hard. Things are at a complexity now, everything should be built to be debugged.
This thread is literally the difference between someone who knows what they talk about getting downvoted because people don't like facts and someone who doesn't know they talk about getting upvoted because they appeal better to emotions.
Yeah, Lemmy is usually pretty tech savvy, so this is kind of surprising.
It’s “some basic evidence and appeals to do some research to change your view” versus “I don’t think so and car manufacturers are just bad” with no real counter argument
Or you're just wrong and crying loudly about it? I don't even know wtf the original point is you were trying to make before this pity party started. "You don’t seem like you are a car enthusiast, so go on any car forum or facebook group and ask about some fake wheels or eBay special turbos." You're a fucking joke. Lots of wasted time explaining nothing at all for scary car scenarios. I don't even want to post this reply but your comments are fucking stupid and misleading. and you end it with a fucking "planned attack" scenario by terrorists or nation states? JFC just make a sane statement and run with it, don't rant on about nothing then get confused when you're downvoted.
It's always been a concern; just not enough of one to explicitly forbid working on a vehicle without specific training/licensing. Hence vehicle inspections/roadworthy tests; someplaces more strictly than others.
It's possible that concern was part of the justification for not requiring manufacturers to make it easier. Spitballing.
As I said, I'm on the fence about it myself. Thing is, a vehicle on public roads has a lot of opportunity to injure or kill someone if a repair was made incorrectly. It's about more than just a person and the thing they own.
HVAC also makes sense because some idiots do things like using propane as a refrigerant in systems not designed for it, and then get a literal flamethrower next to their house.
You joke but we're almost there. Refrigerants are getting more and more proprietary.
I work in the industry and with the push to go to lower global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants manufacturers have developed their own formulas here. It varies from manufacturer to manufacturer even amongst almost identical equipment.
Getting the right refrigerant will only become more and more expensive the more boutique it is. The equipment can already tell what kind of refrigerant is in there based on the system pressures and temperatures.
I've been watching Hyperspace Pirate on Youtube and he talks about how hard it is to get commercial access to some basic refrigerants (like ethylene) as someone who isn't a Pro HVAC tech, and he uses it as an excuse to to create them himself for part of his content.
John Deere probably bribed lobbied hard for that carve out. It was their practices that helped drive the right to repair movement. Giving them a pass really diminishes the accomplishment.
Smaller farms are going to get screwed over with all the fees and mandatory maintenance that can be imposed.
Everyone gets angry about printers needing a debit card on file but manufacturers like John Deere do similar stuff. If they think you've tinkered with it, they can disable the equipment remotely.
That's rather short sighted. I just listed several.
Don't know about you: I'd rather not have the ventilator keeping grandma alive repaired by the hospitals underpaid maintenance department; but a trained technician from the company that built it.
Some things are about more than just an individuals personal liberties.
Did you actually read this thread and the replies in it, or were you just overwhelmed by the opportunity to post someone else's thoughts instead of your own?
You certainly can, it may get seen eventually. But I'm not going to sit through an hour of someone else's content to figure out what point your trying to make.
If you won't even put some effort in and write your own thoughts out, why should I spend my time researching what you think?
It's the lack of effort that bothers me. Especially when my time is limited.
If you won't even put some effort in and write your own thoughts out, why should I spend my time researching what you think?
Pointing to someone else as a reference is one thing; but the completely no effort "here's some links, you do all the work" is almost insulting.
Imagine if Wikipedia removed all the actual info and just kept the reference links. I'm here for the actual info, I didn't visit to be told where I can go to find it. I'll look at the references if I need further clarification, and have the time/energy/desire to do so.
They could have summarized the point in a couple paragraphs instead of demanding I waste an hour of my time to be able to respond at all. First I'd have to actually have that much free time; which I haven't had today until just now.
Video is the least convenient way to share information. For example, it's impossible to skim a video to see if it's something you're interested in or to find the information you're looking for. With text it's easy to do a quick skim to see if it's something worth your time.
Well, you're basically describing a summary, versus a detail, response.
The person posting the video links was giving a detail response, and not a summary response.
Instead of repeating everything in detail in text of what the videos state (which would be time intensive and duplication of effort) just see the videos instead.
Even a sentence or two would help me judge if it's worth my time. If I'm in public and don't have headphones I'm not watching a video, especially if I have no idea what it is. If you tell me why I should care about the video I might make a note to watch it when I get home.
Secondly, I'm not just going to click a random link. I have no idea if it's even relevant or a bot or a troll who just puts the links in every thread they come across.
which would be time intensive
The 5 minutes it would take them to type a quick summary is much less time intensive than the hour it would take everyone who sees the post to watch the videos and see if they care.
Something at least point form of what the video is about would be helpful. I'm in public and don't have headphones, I'm not going to watch a video (much less 3). If context is presented I might make a note to watch it when I get home.
The hospitals underpaid maintenance team vrs a licensed tech from the manufacturer is a false dichotomy. The choice could easily be the hospital's underpaid maintenance team or no repairs at all.
Realistically, they don't put grandma on the vent because they won't buy or keep a device they can't afford to repair.
And why would the company spend more time/effort on their repair staff than the hospital? The company license is no guarantee they aren't minimum wage nobodies.
Thing is, medical equipment suppliers should be held to higher standards than they are currently. If you're providing medical equipment to be used in public healthcare: you should be responsible for maintaining and repairing it imo.
There should be a minimum requirement for repair/maintenance/warranty provided by the manufacturer.
Hospitals don't invest in the ability to perform such repairs largely because of the liability involved, ontop of often being a poorly funded/staffed public service.
The company license is no guarantee they aren't minimum wage nobodies.
No, but then the manufacturer is responsible for the quality of repair/maintenance performed by its staff.
If something goes wrong with the equipment; it's on the equipment manufacturer instead of the hospital using it.
With a mandate on repair/maintenance; they'd be forced to provide quality service to survive.
From the article, parts pairing is “a practice manufacturers use to prevent replacement components from working unless the company’s software approves them.”
It's the practice of preventing you from even using genuine parts. If you buy two identical iPhones, you can't even use parts from one to repair the other. The one phone won't accept the genuine part from the other because it's not paired to that phone by the manufacturer's proprietary tool.
iPhone were one of the easiest devices to steal and sell. Even conventional anti theft measures wouldn't deter theft significantly. Because they are so popular and common stealing an iPhone just to sell parts would still be worthwhile. Making stolen iPhone parts worthless reduces incidence of theft significantly.
This is less of an issue for other manufacturers. They often have more models serving a small customer base, with significantly less retail value.
I don’t actually know the details of how Pairing or Find My iPhone works, but couldn’t they just have the parts individually report their position since they apparently already “know” which device they belong to?
They wouldn't know their location or have a means of sending that location. This would require every subsystem to have a gps antenna, radio and battery. It would be expensive, heavy and wasteful.
I mean when they’re on a working device. The device detects that the part is not original and uses the usual system to send the position as if it was the entire iPhone. Is that not feasible?
That's a good approach for a single device. But for millions it's not as good. Apples current approach significantly reduces theft and the industry around theft of their phones.
There would be an excuse that your using your friends components to fix the phone. But they didn't deregister it. It would be enough to create a viable business.
Repairers could use stolen parts and the owner wouldn't know until apple locked their device.
It can be stopped by controlling the internet traffic to the device. Various methods, even simple DNS systems. Especially in developing economy organised crime can get cooperation with phone networks to do this.
For organised crime this problems can be worked out. But it very difficult to workaround a whitelist of only one part.
Other manufacturers don't have the same issue as their phones don't last as long. Nor do they have as high a resale value. Old iPhones still sell well 5+ years after release.
Google will give you big discounts for trading in iPhones that were cheaper than pixels when released when they won't offer you anything but recycling for an equivalent year pixel. All because the iPhone resale value remains so high.
Obviously you’d ask your friends to deregister the part before giving it to you.
And if they already have methods to control internet traffic and prevent the devices from pinging their location why wouldn’t they directly sell the entire phone?
Because you could, you could argue you forgot. It's a way to get around it. It's easier if apple controls who fixes phones.
It's easier to block the part checking for individual parts than the entire os. You would still have people with bricked phones once they got home and the faulty part phones home.
If apple didn't do this their phones would be stolen at a very high rate. Especially from tourists. The phone would also get a reputation for being stolen. Or stopped working once you got home from the repair store.
Apple sells the convince of a device that works reliably. This makes it of very high value. Especially to those that don't want to worry about their tech. So apples repair methods keep this value. If they changed their phones would be less valuable to most consumers. If this wasn't the case then fair phone would outsell iPhones.
The phones are still repairable, but it's restricted to apple and those apple have authorised to do it. The solution is to make repairs cheaper, not make interchangeable parts. It doesn't work on the scale apple operates, for devices of significant value that can be pick pocketed and shipped to another country.
And since the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection, they just put copy protection on the software (sometimes laughably weak - still counts!) and if you try to get around the hardware lockout you’re officially breaking the lawwww
Hope this applies to cars as well. Bust a taillight in your Ford and get your own replacement, you still have to have a dealer configure the integrated BLISS sensor.
Thanks for the clarification. I was being lazy and didn't read it and thought that meant apple couldn't solder the ram to the motherboard aka pairing it.
It's funny that this article doesn't mention the one company that pretty much single handedly created the need for this legislation in the first place.
