British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers • Hacker News Board

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#311

Post by judge2020 » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 2:09 AM UTC

alerighi wrote: post #193

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]

The radio firmware is something that is at another level. Even if you end up unlocking the bootloader, that doesn't give you access to the radio firmware, that is proprietary and needs to be signed, and cannot be modified. It's basically seen by the OS as a modem to which they talk trough AT commands (yes, they are still in use), the same thing that you would obtain by plugging in an USB modem to a normal PC. For Wi-…

> The radio firmware is something that is at another level. Even if you end up unlocking the bootloader, that doesn't give you access to the radio firmware, that is proprietary and needs to be signed, and cannot be modified. It's basically seen by the OS as a modem to which they talk trough AT commands (yes, they are still in use), the same thing that you would obtain by plugging in an USB modem to a normal PC.

Who's to say this? What if i'm Apple and my ''partner'' radio chip manufacturer (cough qualcomm cough) doesn't give me access to changing the bootloader? Why wouldn't 'forced unlocked bootloader' also apply to Apple-owned devices?

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#312

Post by marcan_42 » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #224

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.`

Would be nice if they provided a way to backup your phone before unlocking the bootloader, or at least put a warning that your phone is about to be wiped. I have personally lost data because of this, and there really is no way to backup an android device without having unlocked the bootloader first .

`adb backup` works with the bootloader locked. Unlock, wipe, then restore the backup. It's not perfect, but it gets most of the way there.

On the phones I've used (Pixel), there is a warning that unlocking will wipe all data.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#313

Post by nemothekid » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 2:20 AM UTC

bluescrn wrote: post #255

samatman wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

User-replaceable has nothing whatsoever to do with right to repair. Zero, zip, nada. A right to repair law might mandate that any device with a battery also have the battery sold, by the manufacturer, for a reasonable period of time. That gives you a practical right to repair the device by replacing the battery, and it's well-defined. "User replaceable" is not well defined. Does it mean you need to be able to do this…

But there's not much point having the right to repair if products are designed to be non-repairable and spare parts are unavailable. A battery is a consumable and should be user-replaceable. It might be a bit fiddly, with tiny screws and fragile connectors, but shouldn't require heat guns and chemicals to remove adhesives... (And if we're about to replace billions of vehicles with EVs, perhaps consuming the entire pl…

Louis Rossman has a distinction about this - the difference between right to repair and user-replacable. I can't find the video but the argument is this:

Louis does not want to impede on Apple's ability to make devices smaller or more compact, as that is what the vast majority of customers prefer. Louis, as an independent repairman, has spent 10s of thousands of dollars on the appropriate tools to repair these devices at an incredibly small scale. The problem comes when he needs to buy a replacement part he is physically unable to get the part. Apple, in some cases, will forbid the supplier from selling the part to anyone but Apple.

It's not a question of difficulty. Louis is equipped with every tool and all the time of the world, but Apple is directly impeding his ability to repair customer devices by refusing him access to the parts. That is in large part what his bill aims to change - not to force Apple to go back to 90s style clip on batteries.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#314

Post by Guest42 » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 2:23 AM UTC

bluescrn wrote: post #265

spoonjim wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

User-replaceable battery means that entire product categories like wireless earbuds e.g. Airpods cannot exist. A better solution is that the manufacturer must provide battery replacement services at a cost specified at the time of purchase and only allowed to increase at the rate of inflation.

'Cannot exist' or 'must be just a little bit bulkier'?

I miss my bulky motorola cell phone that weighed less and had decent plastic because weight and glass became luxurious.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#315

Post by porknubbins » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 2:38 AM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #308

bluescrn wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there's not much point having the right to repair if products are designed to be non-repairable and spare parts are unavailable. A battery is a consumable and should be user-replaceable. It might be a bit fiddly, with tiny screws and fragile connectors, but shouldn't require heat guns and chemicals to remove adhesives... (And if we're about to replace billions of vehicles with EVs, perhaps consuming the entire pl…

An extreme example of this would be the CPU - should it be repairable as well? What if the SRAM cache needs to be replaced? Should they be forced to backtrack and make that a slotted component in the next generation of motherboards, costing performance for user repairability? Or is the list of components arbitrarily determined by some administration-appointed regulatory agency?

This is taking it to an absurd extreme though, which is not really how laws work. We would be better off with a right to repair on some sort of reasonable macro scale and letting a few court cases figure out where the line is, because its definitely not nano scale chip features.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#316

Post by ryder9 » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 2:42 AM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #308

bluescrn wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there's not much point having the right to repair if products are designed to be non-repairable and spare parts are unavailable. A battery is a consumable and should be user-replaceable. It might be a bit fiddly, with tiny screws and fragile connectors, but shouldn't require heat guns and chemicals to remove adhesives... (And if we're about to replace billions of vehicles with EVs, perhaps consuming the entire pl…

An extreme example of this would be the CPU - should it be repairable as well? What if the SRAM cache needs to be replaced? Should they be forced to backtrack and make that a slotted component in the next generation of motherboards, costing performance for user repairability? Or is the list of components arbitrarily determined by some administration-appointed regulatory agency?

yes, next question

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#317

Post by porknubbins » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 2:43 AM UTC

spoonjim wrote: post #258

bluescrn wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there's not much point having the right to repair if products are designed to be non-repairable and spare parts are unavailable. A battery is a consumable and should be user-replaceable. It might be a bit fiddly, with tiny screws and fragile connectors, but shouldn't require heat guns and chemicals to remove adhesives... (And if we're about to replace billions of vehicles with EVs, perhaps consuming the entire pl…

User-replaceable battery means that entire product categories like wireless earbuds e.g. Airpods cannot exist. A better solution is that the manufacturer must provide battery replacement services at a cost specified at the time of purchase and only allowed to increase at the rate of inflation.

It would take some legislative creativity but why not put in some exceptions for tiny, or waterproof products etc. There are always exceptions in the real world. I fix all my phones but am fully willing to accept that I might not be able to cleanly install a gasket like the factory and lose some protection after I open it.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#318

Post by Silhouette » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 2:45 AM UTC

netr0ute wrote: post #269

Silhouette wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also no legal basis for requiring radio controllers to have signature enforced firmware loading. If someone actually tried to write their own radio firmware and made a mistake, there very soon would be. Messing around with radio transmission is not a game. Make enough noise on the wrong frequency and now you're interfering with communications for emergency services responding to a disaster or air traffic con…

You say all this as if the megacorps with signed firmware can't make mistakes.

Of course they can. But usually they don't, not for something like this.

I have been witness to the kind of search I mentioned. Usually it happens because of a freak hardware failure, not a malicious act or negligence. Unfortunately the innocence of all involved does not reduce the severity of the potential consequences. As I said, this stuff is not a game.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#319

Post by CyanBird » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 2:56 AM UTC

roody15 wrote: post #74

Building a surveillance state. Want direct data devices locked down and proprietary (TPM and apple T2). Want devices directly tied to the user. Want to prevent “hacks” that detect snooping or other low level background “proprietary” services that may be running. My two cents. We are rushing to emulate china.

Rather the other way around, China is rushing to import Spyware from the western companies for their own use

https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/oracle-social-media-surv...

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#320

Post by Silhouette » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 3:01 AM UTC

R0b0t1 wrote: post #280

Silhouette wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also no legal basis for requiring radio controllers to have signature enforced firmware loading. If someone actually tried to write their own radio firmware and made a mistake, there very soon would be. Messing around with radio transmission is not a game. Make enough noise on the wrong frequency and now you're interfering with communications for emergency services responding to a disaster or air traffic con…

People do this all the time with routers. The FCC has been trying to require firmware signing but it has been pushed off for now because there is very little demonstrable harm. I can go buy a bunch of passives off of ebay and make a noisy oscillator that will kill everything for a couple blocks but nobody seems to do it.

I have seen the "very little demonstrable harm" you mentioned with my own eyes in real time. It was little more than serendipity that saved lives that day. If someone did do what you described then IMHO they would be recklessly endangering the lives of others and should be treated accordingly.