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

British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 377 posts

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#101

Post by pessimizer »

bluGill wrote: post #46
cunidev wrote: post #40

Not even mentioning the hardware bits, I have been collaborating with postmarketOS for a while now, and believe that the main thing we need to make those devices longer-lasting would be an unlockable bootloader by law. This sounds so logical (why cannot I run, by voiding the warranty, any code I want on my machine, whatever it is?), yet apparently so hard to make openly illegal, since the problem is barely acknowledg…

You can't do that because someone (probably not you) will then unlock the phone and [insert something evil here - perhaps involving the radio]

[abuse children and drugs, or be racist.]

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#102

Post by my123 »

foolmeonce wrote: post #98
bluGill wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't do that because someone (probably not you) will then unlock the phone and [insert something evil here - perhaps involving the radio]

Most phones secured bootloaders are hacked in less than 6 months if there is sufficient interest in the model. So if treatment of this as a huge security threat that makes other rights moot is valid then most of us should be able to return our improperly secured phones before their warranty is up.

Not the case, it takes significantly longer... if it happens at all.

Much longer. It took until 2019 for checkra1n to become a thing to unlock Apple A7 to A11 devices. Apple A11 is a 2017 SoC.

A12, A13, A14 remain uncracked today.

In Android lands, bootloaders starting from quite some years ago are quite solid too, with no bypasses except when the device maker provides you the possibility to unlock it.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#103

Post by my123 »

rocqua wrote: post #100
Someone1234 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there's a large subset of people who don't understand what TPM does, so just assume the worst and hand wave about how it [somehow] causes [random bad thing]. In this case I guess TPM causes telemetry?

TPM used for secure boot, (hypothetically) used to block installing non-windows OS, means the owner is forced to using an OS that has telemetry. That is the argument I suppose OP was making. The secure boot locking is hypothetical, but it is often feared. I get why, because it seems like something Microsoft would love to do.

TPM is used for measured boot, to not release a secret/operate on a key if measurements do not match.

It doesn't block you from running anything.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#104

Post by rocqua »

tshaddox wrote: post #63
dodobirdlord wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes they will seek out nearby open WiFi networks to join. There’s concern that in coming years with the spread of 5G availability that smart TVs may start packaging a 5G modem and connecting to cell networks, bypassing the need to be connected to a WiFi network.

Why would 5G make that be a more viable choice for the TV manufacturers than existing widespread cellular networks?

Because 5G is intentionally marketed as having this functionality. It helps by allowing more efficient low-speed connections, and simpler radio design for very simple implementation. It also has 'slicing' which would make it much easier to provide a wide 5G network to e.g. all LG devices without LG building towers.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#105

Post by jaywalk »

jacquesm wrote: post #28
Hamuko wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't there already fridges that run Android?

Yes: https://gadgets.ndtv.com/others/news/samsungs-t9000-smart-re...

Samsung fridges haven't run Android in a while though. They run Samsung's own OS called Tizen.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#106

Post by rocqua »

apocalypstyx wrote: post #42
kleiba wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't own a smart TV, so this question is probably a bit naive - but what happens if you don't connect your smart TV to the internet?

Some brands/models can't even be setup without an internet connection and setting up accounts (and sometimes credit card information). Eventually, they'll probably have their own independent 5g connection.

Source / link?

I would love to dive into such an example.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#107

Post by spamizbad »

undfg wrote: post #10
xroche wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple solve this by making spares super expensive and only available from partners. This is even more hilarious: they sell you a "spare part" which is the logic board, for nearly the price of the laptop. But they (1) do provide spare parts and (2) sell them at a ""reasonable price""

That's okay - if people care about this they will stop buying Apple products.

Apple isn't the only manufacturer doing this. It's also quite common among PC manufacturers. And consumers aren't exactly provided this information openly to weigh this as a factor. The market cannot currently solve this problem because there's not enough transparency.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#108

Post by pessimizer »

nerdawson wrote: post #47
ShaneMcGowan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to find a good non smart tv is impossible now, I want dumb tv and dumb fridge

TV manufacturers are responding, often clumsily and based on their self-interest (data collection), to what consumers want. Trying to find a dumb TV is like trying to find a car without a built in radio. You're welcome to leave it switched off. Smart TVs are dumb if they aren't connected to the internet. Some may be slow. Some may have a poor interface. I'd worry about solving for that rather than expecting manufactu…

> TV manufacturers are responding, often clumsily and based on their self-interest (data collection), to what consumers want.

No, they're not. They're collaborating to eliminate choice. The vast majority of the market being taken by smart TVs is a theoretical result of the market. The fact that no manufacturers slip in to clean up the 5% of the market who are willing to pay a slight premium not to have a smart TV is evidence of tacit collusion.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#109

Post by okennedy »

Someone1234 wrote: post #38
emouryto wrote: post #16

Well, smartphones must be updated to include better spyware. And newer computers are also better locked down to allow better surveillance. So, the older ones can't break down fast enough! You don't want a repairable computer so creeps install, like, a Linux distro. You want disposable TPM machines with Windows 11 Home Edition and unstoppable "telemetry".

I feel like there's a large subset of people who don't understand what TPM does, so just assume the worst and hand wave about how it [somehow] causes [random bad thing]. In this case I guess TPM causes telemetry?

A TPM is a chip on some motherboards that serves two purposes:

1. Using something not too dissimilar from blockchain/git repo hashes to attest to the the execution stack (BIOS, bootloader, kernel, userspace). 2. Providing cryptographic primitives that are only unlocked when the stack exactly matches a particular value.

It's a handy tool for avoiding spyware, as any change in the attestation chain gets immediately flagged. It is also, in principle, useful for tying DRM keys to a particular execution stack that's known to be trusted... although it's very worth noting that the TPM's threat model does not include an attacker having physical access to the hardware.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#110

Post by TylerE »

jolmg wrote: post #80
bluGill wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you missing an /s or are you saying that it shouldn't be done because it would enable e.g. use of radio hardware that goes against radio regulation Great question. I'm intentionally not answering it because I am not sure what I think. There are valid points on both sides. In part what I think depends on how evil evil people get.

AFAIK, anything phones can do on a hardware level can be done on more open platforms. What could unlocking phones enable evil people to do? What's one of these valid points of the other side?

Phones are ubiquitous. A phone sitting on a desk is invisible, in a way a random enclosure with a fire wires sticking out of it isn’t.
Post reply on HN