this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
860 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

72498 readers
3684 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Skrufimonki@lemmynsfw.com 109 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Needed to add price gouging for parts into the bill as well

Outlawing Product Pairing

Proctor called the legislation “the best bill yet” because it goes a step further than other state’s right to repair laws by calling out and making illegal “product pairing,” in which onboard software makes it impossible to install parts that aren’t from the manufacturer.

Product pairing has become a favorite way for companies to make sure that products they sell are repaired only by them, and it’s not covered in any of the other state’s right to repair laws. Apple relies on product pairing extensively. iPhone owners, for instance, generally can’t replace any parts unless the phone can determine that the replacement is a genuine Apple replacement part. This led Apple, which has supported right to repair legislation in other states, to lobby against Oregon’s bill.

“We remain very concerned about the risk to consumers imposed by the broad parts-pairing restrictions in this bill,” Apple’s principal secure repair architect, John Perry, said in February at a legislative hearing.

“An iPhone contains its owner’s important personal data including financial, health, and location information, and this bill introduces the possibility that Apple would be required to allow unknown, non-secure third-party Face ID or Touch ID modules to unlock that personal information,” Apple said in a statement on March 4. “We will continue to support repair legislation, but strongly believe this bill does not offer the consumer protections Oregonians deserve.”

That’s all horse-hockey, of course, and basically a way for Apple to publicly support right to repair while denying it to its customers, as noted by iFixit,>

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's in the name is "security". As if a third party camera or back cover is going to break into the OS, harvest super important user data, and then somehow find some way to transmit it back to headquarters.

You know, or they just want to make money off of selling parts at 200% profit instead of Apples 500%.

The idea that this is somehow a security risk is a giant steamy pile of bullshit to keep people buying their garbage.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The idea that this is somehow a security risk is a giant steamy pile of bullshit to keep people buying their garbage.

There is a very small risk if you're a high value person, like an important politician or something. But those same people are incredibly unlikely to have something repaired over just buying a new one, so yea bunch of horse shit lmao

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My computer contains much more important information than my phone and there certainly isn't any parts pairing BS there. I would never trust any biometric authentication alone for securing sensitive information. It's good to use in addition to a secure password though.

[–] JustinTheGM@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago

Absolutely! Biometrics are at best a username, not a password.

[–] jayandp@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago

“An iPhone contains its owner’s important personal data including financial, health, and location information, and this bill introduces the possibility that Apple would be required to allow unknown, non-secure third-party Face ID or Touch ID modules to unlock that personal information,” Apple said in a statement on March 4.

What BS. Sure, making sure every fingerprint sensor or whatever has a unique signature would allow you to lock a module to a device to prevent tampering and security bypass. But you should be able to just enter a password or recovery code in order to authorize a new part to be used with your device's security, then it'll be the customers responsibility to make sure that the part operates as it should. None of Apple's business.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

this bill introduces the possibility that Apple would be required

I'm sorry, are they under the impression that they still own the phone once you buy it?

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

They are under the impression that they own you

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They should at least allow some type of registration system for the parts if they don’t allow existing pairing implementations.

[–] blurg@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A registration system where only registered parts are allowed, so no clean room (software engineering) third-party manufacturing? Every single part has to be registered with the original device manufacturer? This seems like a detour around right to repair.

This seems like a detour around right to repair.

That's because it is. That's all Apple does. Every time they get brought to court around shit, like the app store stuff in EU that just happened, they make it intentionally as difficult as could possibly be while still technically following the request. It's malicious compliance at every step of the way even when they get caught. They're so anti-consumer it's not even funny.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

One wheel as well is a notable example for me.

Personal EVS shouldn't be completely unrepairable and unmodifiable. Just disconnecting the battery will brick it and you have to send it back to the manufacturer...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So the bill has balls and teeth?! Impressive.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 year ago

Like Deadpool's nether regions.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Balls and teeth, but no game systems, farm equipment, anything with an engine (ice), or....electric toothbrushes. All exempt.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago

One ball and one tooth.

[–] los_chill@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is strangely relevant for me. Been trying to fix my expensive Sonicare for a few weeks now. Finally gave up and bought the cheapest knock-off. Left me with a bad taste...

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

4 years ago off meh.com I got a cheap electric high-speed toothbrush that came with 12 replacement heads. I'm still using it, and it still works great. I actually only replace the head about once a year (I sanitize it more often than that) but it's been awesome for the $30 I spent on it. 5/5 stars.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Try soaking the brush in vinegar, might help with the taste.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hopefully this sort of infects the entire system and causes major companies to essentially give these rights to everyone. It’s not like Apple or Samsung is going to ban products for an entire state… well hopefully.

[–] CaptainProton@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's Oregon, with a population of a whopping 4 million across the entire state, so you know what, maybe actually cheaper to cut the state off than to establish DIY supply chain for repairs parts that will undercut your whole product portfolio.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ALavaPulsar@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

This is super great to see. Normally my home state just follows whatever California passes since we're a much smaller market, but this time they're really moving things forward for consumer repairability.

Also, just really reinforces how much I hate Kathy Hochul for absolutely neutering NY's right to repair bill. Glad I don't have her as my governor anymore.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anyone know if the governor will actually sign it, or will they do what the New York governor did?

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

No one has any insights into the politics of the governor, and the odds of him/her actually signing this?

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

I can't wait to see the innovative and creative ways Apple will find to create new forms of nightmare for consumers following that.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I’m staring at “Coh-Jones” for a good minute feeling really confused. Now I just feel really dumb. 🥜

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FrankTheHealer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago
[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Glueing iPhones and other devices together is do much better for business....you can't fix it, and a robot can make it so you don't need to work there and get paid part of the profit.

[–] EddieTee77@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Which is why Apple doesn't like this one but did support California's

load more comments
view more: next ›