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

181–190 of 377 posts

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#181

Post by fouric »

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…

> Smart TVs are dumb if they aren't connected to the internet.

Until manufacturers start selling TV's that don't work at all if they're not connected.

Or, as is the case with my Samsung TV, they could just be arbitrarily annoying until you do connect - pepper the user with requests to connect and put up modals everywhere until they finally relent.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#182

Post by crazygringo »

ajkdhcb2 wrote: post #167
crazygringo wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People want thin phones. A non-removable battery allows for thinness you simply cannot get otherwise. And while you can argue about whether thin laptops are necessary, for people who carry their phones in their pants pockets, an extra couple millimeters gone is genuinely a meaningful difference. There's no propaganda there.

>A non-removable battery allows for thinness you simply cannot get otherwise. I doubted this so I looked up dimensions. Samsung Galaxy S6 from 2015 is 6.8mm thick, with removable battery. S10 from 2019 is 7.8mm thick. So your theory doesn't seem to match reality.

Wikipedia says the S6 did not have a user-replaceable battery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S6#Battery

In any case, it's apples-to-oranges and doesn't mean anything. Cell phones can have functionality added that takes up the difference in thickness -- e.g. keeping the phone the same thickness instead of it getting even thicker.

But main point is, they're thinner basically by definition. There are necessarily more layers of materials.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#183

Post by varispeed »

chrisseaton wrote: post #178
varispeed wrote: post #117

Why journalists don't call it as fraud? They spent money on drafting this legislation and this is not fit for purpose. But by the looks of it, big money must be behind it so it ticks the box, but does not actually change anything.

> Why journalists don't call it as fraud? Because it's not fraud. Fraud requires obtaining a valuable security by deception. That's not what's going on here. So it's not fraud.

Fraud - wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

It's very much what's going on here.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#184

Post by celestialcheese »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #174
celestialcheese wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, at least, unlocking devices is legal as of 2015(?) through DMCA exemptions, which has been huge for recyclers and refurbishers. Still couldn't get game console unlocking through, but at least phones / tablets / other devices that are locked can be unlocked and resold. https://resource-recycling.com/e-scrap/2018/11/01/digital-de...

These exemptions have to be renewed every 3 years. The 2018 exemptions for "jailbreaking" phones and tablets are still in force, but they will expire if not renewed.

There's work happening to make these permanent. [1] Until that happens, there are tireless volunteers and organizations lobbying for these exemptions every 3 years.

[1] - https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/06/29/copyright-office-begin...

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#185

Post by fouric »

deadbunny wrote: post #99
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.

> Sometimes they will seek out nearby open WiFi networks to join [Citation Needed]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27701977 which links to https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/bpr6xs/if_you_choo... which is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20201003141448/https://old.reddi...

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#186

Post by chrisseaton »

varispeed wrote: post #183
chrisseaton wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why journalists don't call it as fraud? Because it's not fraud. Fraud requires obtaining a valuable security by deception. That's not what's going on here. So it's not fraud.

Fraud - wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. It's very much what's going on here.

There's absolutely no way you could convince a judge that this was fraud. You can't just pick some legal term that sounds familiar and say that's what's going on. These terms have very specific meanings based on extensive case law.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#187

Post by bosswipe »

thebean11 wrote: post #164
mmis1000 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android phones triggers wipe on unlock. So use unlock bootloader to stole data simply don't work. Besides that, some phone will add a unremovble giant red exclamation mark on boot screen to notate the phone being unlocked to warn you `the phone is already unlocked, don't trust it unless it is done by you.`

Don't all modern phones encrypt user data on disk anyway?

The wipe on unlock thing is not about preventing others from getting your data, it's about preventing you from getting app data.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#188

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

als0 wrote: post #158
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought TPMs also prevent physical attacks by being configurable to require password for unlock and physical anti tamper features.

The bus between the CPU and the TPM is exposed, so there are plenty of physical attacks that you can do, assuming a certain level of skill and tools.

Right, for configurations where the tpm automatically releases keys, they can be sniffed. It can be configured to only release it's secret once a correct password is given. It also rate limits I believe.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#189

Post by jolmg »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #138
jolmg wrote: post #50

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? If you're really expressing concern, what do you think of e.g. modem modules for regular computers or SDR hardware?

No, even if this is not the optimal response to the issue it's at least a popular concern to cite. Our ubiquitous radio devices only work because the invisible commons that is the radio spectrum noise floor is aggressively and totally managed. Intentional emitters can only be sold after testing to ensure that their output is within regulated power levels and frequencies. It is trivial for an end user with a high-powe…

> However, I don't know what a comparably effective alternative would look like

I don't know what the current state of affairs is with regards to radio modem firmware, but I would think that if radio-controlling software should be certified (as following regulation), that should be limited to the firmware, and the modem should only accept firmware updates cryptographically signed by the manufacturer (and possibly the regulator). The firmware should provide an interface that only permits legal use through technical means. IOW, regulation should be limited to the hardware module and the software running inside it. It shouldn't be possible for software residing on any other part of the device to run afoul.

If that's impossible for some reason (which I don't think it should be), then I would argue that other alternatives like focusing on prosecuting violations (like the app and OS you mentioned) or modifying the regulations so they can be contained within the firmware while still meeting goals should come before any idea of locking down whole devices for the regulation of a specific module.

Also,

> You at least have to consider the possibility that someone could create a "High Power Radio" app or OS that would ...

If that's possible then, it's possible now. I mean, you don't even have to consider phones. Bootloaders and OSes in regular computers are open source and unlocked. If that's a problem that can arise from unlocked devices, then it already would have been a problem since long ago.

Additionally, the discussion was not whether there should be unlocked devices, which there already are. The discussion was whether locking should be illegal.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#190

Post by jeremyjh »

pessimizer wrote: post #108
nerdawson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Or evidence that it is nowhere near 5% of the market that would actually pay more for that.
Post reply on HN