The Fight for the “Right to Repair”
smithsonianmag.com
The Fight for the “Right to Repair”
1–10 of 325 posts
Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”
#2A lot of issues surrounding the move to make anything and everything a "Service" are starting to become very clear. The issues with IoT devices being bricked, Tesla 'ownership', and so on really do need scrutiny from a functional body with a hint of the public's interest at heart.
Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”
#3.... "but its for our safety"
Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”
#4I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues.
There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for their car to always favor the people in the car no matter what?
If the self-driving software is completely open source, you can exploit the collision avoidance algorithms to favor aggressive driving with your car. For example if the software tries to keep a 15 foot buffer between cars, you can"tune" your software to use a shorter buffer and cut in front of traffic more easily.
Law enforcement will campaign for a remote "pull over" command to prevent people from fleeing police.
The answers to these types of questions will be very important for open source going forward.
Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”
#5I think that measures like planned obsolescence and preventing consumers from repairing the devices that they own should not be legal. They should be treated similarly to anti-competitive practices.
Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”
#6A lot of issues surrounding the move to make anything and everything a "Service" are starting to become very clear. The issues with IoT devices being bricked, Tesla 'ownership', and so on really do need scrutiny from a functional body with a hint of the public's interest at heart.
Those are all definite issues, but even in the case of simple computer hardware there's a problem when the manufacturer tries to lock the owners out of repairing with special screws, glue, etc., so that they can make money off the repairs themselves. New MacBook Pros have their batteries glued in and they can't really be replaced without replacing the entire top case they're glued to at the same time. They claim this is necessary for the thinness they want, but the MacBook Air is thinner and doesn't have a glued battery.
My older MacBook Pro has a screwed in battery which uses tri-wing screws to keep people from replacing it themselves, but a $5 tool online can let you replace it anyway, and it takes literally just a couple minutes.
Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”
#7I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues. There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for the…
I think it should be expected that once the software/firmware of a self-driving car has been modified by someone not authorized by the car maker, it should be expected that the car maker is not responsible for that car any more. Of course it brings up the problem of whether it is possible to detect such a modification.
Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”
#8I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues. There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for the…
I think it should be expected that once the software/firmware of a self-driving car has been modified by someone not authorized by the car maker, it should be expected that the car maker is not responsible for that car any more. Of course it brings up the problem of whether it is possible to detect such a modification.
And also whether the modification is relevant the the problem. I can imagine court cases where the driver argues that the change they made was irrelevant to the accident that occurred.
Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”
#9Right to repair = ban on any waiver of repair rights in any commercial relationship.
Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”
#10I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues. There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for the…
Whilst I agree with your points, I wouldn't conflate the remote pull over with the right to repair, other than as a reason not to allow it.
As you say, if it is open source it may well be modified, and likely the remote pull over will be removed.
I can't really imagine a scenario whereby the remote pullover is implemented, and then allowed to be removed by individual owners.