Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 325 posts

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#21

Post by moyix »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

I 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…

We already have some of these issues without open source. People today modify their cars to make them perform better at the expense of violating emissions standards. It's a very tiny number of people that actually end up doing so, and they sometimes get caught and are then fined appropriately for emissions violations.

My feeling is that if there are regulations that require certain ethical behavior for self-driving cars, then there will also be periodic testing to make sure your car is in compliance. In the case of aggressive driving, we might also start to see traffic cameras doing automated detection of violations – if it sees that the gap between cars is less than 15 feet it'll take a picture of your license plate and send you a ticket (or even suspend your license until you can prove your car's software is in compliance).

But I suspect that on the whole people are going to stick with the defaults. The same sort of people who like to jailbreak their phones might mess with the software on their cars, but it will be an even smaller percentage of the population that engages in this behavior – after all, if you mess up you may not just brick your car, you might get yourself killed.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#22

Post by mikeash »

The_Hoff wrote: post #11

For me, Apple devices are always what come to mind when thinking about ability to repair and modify. I used to not mind when I couldn't open my iPod Classic to replace the battery, because failures like this rarely occurred and when they did Apple repaired them easily. Today however, when something as trivial as a computer memory upgrade is restricted, and the Genius Bar is overloaded with iPhone screen repairs, I fi…

You can replace your battery, it just takes a bit of time and effort. Ditto the screen. RAM is tough because it's soldered in, but at least they have a good excuse for making the batteries and RAM that way: they want to make their stuff smaller.

Right to Repair did show up pretty loudly with Apple devices when the Error 53 controversy happened, where people's phones would refuse to boot after having the home button replaced. Thankfully, it appears this was an honest mistake and it has been fixed. It does show how losing the Right to Repair would actually look, though: not just stuff that's hard to replace because of design constraints, but devices which arbitrarily refuse to accept unauthorized replacement parts.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#23

Post by paulsutter »

This is carburetor nostalgia, from a time when everything was human scale and adjustable. Look at how chips are stacked and interconnected within packages in modern design[1], that trend will only intensify. Software is also getting more complex, with deep learning the system develops its own if/thens.

[1] http://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/news/070905_p10_hynix.jpg

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#24

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

maxerickson wrote: post #15
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

I 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 is pretty likely that the full self driving system will be the thing that gets licensed. If that were the case, your exploited systems would not be licensed for operation on public roads. This can be completely orthogonal to whether you are able to modify the vehicle or not.

How would you detect these changes in a licensed system if you are allowed to modify the vehicle? If you do behavior based testing - the person will just hide the features behind a backdoor so the testing looks normal. If you do some type of checksum based testing, you have defacto made modification illegal, and it is bypassed by doing a "factory reset" prior to the licensing check, and loading the modified software after the licensing check.

If you try to do some type of remote real-time detection of an unlicensed system, software that is modified can masquerade as unmodified.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#25

Post by Aelinsaar »

waterphone wrote: post #6
Aelinsaar wrote: post #2

A 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…

They're doing it physically, or they're doing it legally, but through one avenue or another they're all starting to do it. 'Surface as a Service', all of what you said about Macs and their batteries, and so on.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#26

Post by mrfusion »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

I 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…

Companies are spending billions of dollars in r&d to build self driving cars and you think a hobbiest is going to modify his car with his own "aggressive" self driving system?

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#27

Post by Silhouette »

jswny wrote: post #5

I 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.

I'm wary of making things illegal, but I do think requiring full disclosure is in order so buyers can make up their own mind and suppliers willing to offer more reliable/repairable products can use it as a competitive advantage.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#28

Post by scrollaway »

chinhodado wrote: post #7
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

I 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.

Liability is the least important part of this problem. It doesn't matter who is liable, the problem is a conflict of philosophies. On one side we want to ensure the safety of the public, on the other we want to have full control over the equipment we own.

This isn't the first time this question has come up. It comes up with firearms for example, regarding how you can and cannot modify on a firearm you legally purchased.

IMO you should be able to modify your car's autopilot however you want to... at the expense of being able to legally drive it on roads. We already have fairly strict legal requirements in place for you to be able to take a 2+ ton death machine on wheels and travel in it at high speeds on public roads.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#29

Post by mcherm »

mrfusion wrote: post #26
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

I 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…

Companies are spending billions of dollars in r&d to build self driving cars and you think a hobbiest is going to modify his car with his own "aggressive" self driving system?

If the hobbiest is CAPABLE of doing so, then they will.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#30

Post by waterphone »

wil421 wrote: post #18
waterphone wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

MacBooks and MBPs are becoming throw away devices after 3 or 4 years. In 2013 I upgraded my 2011 MBP to have more RAM and a larger SSD. The new ones have the RAM soddared on so I guess I'll need to max it out when I buy and forfeit the possibility of a future upgrade. The custom SSD is expensive and only one maker seems to have decent quality ones.[1] I know laptops aren't increasing in power/abilities like they used…

I still have a 2011 as well, and have no intention of upgrading beyond it for the foreseeable future. It still works great, I've maxed out the RAM and added a 750 GB SSD, it does everything I need to do with the performance I need, and I'm happy. I've replaced the keyboard myself, and replaced the battery as well with an aftermarket replacement. I don't need anything newer, and I like being able to repair it myself for minimal cost.
Post reply on HN