[ad_1]
Analysis A California law that would give people the right to self-repair their electronics was removed by its author less than two months after its first proposal.
"Although this decision was not easy, it became clear that the bill would not have the support it needed today, and the manufacturers had left enough doubt with it. vague and unsubstantiated claims of privacy and security, "Assembly Member Susan Talamantes Eggman said in a statement this week.
Legislation (AB 1163) was introduced in the United States only in March and had the support of many organizations, including Consumer Reports, Electronic Frontier Foundations (EFF) and Californians Against Waste.
But just as with a consumer-friendly bill last month, the Right to Repair Bill was withdrawn at the last minute on April 30. It was to be discussed and put to the vote at a meeting of the Protection Committee this week.
The rationale behind withdrawing the bill, rather than allowing it to be rejected, is that the bill can be amended and re-introduced at a later stage of the legislative session. If he loses during a vote, the game is almost over.
However, when we asked the office of the member of the House, Mr. Eggman, what changes he thought would make the bill more acceptable to a majority of committee members, we received no response.
What is clear is that Big Tech lobbyists and their badociated industry bodies continue to call the launchers in Sacramento, even when they provide questionable arguments.
In this case, a coalition of technology companies sent a letter [PDF] to the Chair of the Committee, Ed Chau, in which they argued that allowing third parties to repair consumer devices would pose a threat to consumer safety.
"One of the main concerns of this legislation is its potential for weakening the privacy and security of various electronic products," the letter says, adding, "Through access to guides and proprietary tools, hackers can more easily bypbad security protections, without harming only the product owner, but also all those who share their network. "
dangermouse
What some consider to be the ability to solve problems with expensive equipment purchased without paying excessive fees to the manufacturer or an authorized third party, these companies see a security risk.
"We are concerned that the mandatory disclosure of sensitive proprietary tools and information could make device manufacturers an attractive target for malicious behavior," the letter says. "Bad actors could seek to exploit compliance requirements for illegal purposes, such as bypbading digital locks protecting copyrighted content and / or making unauthorized changes."
The same argument has been used for years for all types of electronic devices, and manufacturers who benefit financially still have an explanation of why they are needed. Such as phones that are locked to specific networks. Or phone numbers that can not be changed. Or laptop memory that can not be exchanged.
According to reports, Apple and an industry badociation went even further and discovered an iPhone in the offices of committee members and claimed that allowing someone to open an iPhone could hurt him, because he might accidentally puncture it. Lithium-ion battery of the device.
Surprisingly, this argument seemed to hold the attention of elected representatives. Just like the argument that the iPhone is "too complex" for people to fix it (probably in the same way that Donald Trump's tax returns are "too complex" for Congress understands them, which is why he will not publish them.)
"Manufacturers want to ensure that their products are repaired by professionals who understand the software that runs them and spend a lot of time acquiring the necessary knowledge to repair them safely and return them to the consumer without compromising standards or to undermine essential security features, "the letter continues.
This seems like a plausible argument as long as we do not take into account that the majority of adults drive metal bombs at huge speeds around our roads and that they can decide at any time to stick a screwdriver. But they do not do it because they realize they do not know what they are doing and so take it to a garage. In other words, the company has already treated this one.
Ooh, it's going to cost you
One of the main problems badociated with locking consumer devices, and then having to perform authorized repairs, is that users are simply thrown away. Anyone who has received a quote from Apple to solve a minor problem with his device will be able to say that the price is often not worth it.
And the markup is huge: as Apple had accidentally explained by reducing the replacement price of a battery from $ 79 to $ 29 after being caught in a storm of protests against chokes. Apple can set prices if a repair shop has to sign a contract with Apple.
If there was a legal "right to repair", the probability that a new iPhone battery costs $ 35 to the consumer, instead of $ 80, is about 100%. Similarly, by locking the memory of its computers – by literally soldering RAM on the motherboard – Apple can charge obscene markup on a commodity. If you buy from Apple, the RAM costs up to four times more – and Apple ensures that you have no choice but to do exactly that.
In its recent laptops, Apple has literally removed the ability to upgrade your memory later and asks you to decide and pay the memory beforehand. There is not a single good argument for this.
Super-Cali is optimistic and the right to repair is negotiable, even though Apple thought it was something quite atrocious
READ MORE
All of these extra costs are good for Apple's bottom line, but they literally come out of the pockets of American consumers: that's one thing you would expect the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee to take understand.
The inherent costs of users dropping their products and buying new ones rather than repairing old ones are also great news for manufacturers in terms of new sales, but bad news for the environment and a major cause of "Electronic waste".
The response of the technology industry to the issue of electronic waste? They were better at being greener. "Electronics manufacturers have developed strong policies and programs to continually improve the sustainability of their products throughout their life cycle, from product design to sourcing, product performance reuse and its responsible management at the end of life ".
Of course, the members of the Committee on the Protection of Privacy and Consumer Protection have probably chosen valid and valid reasons not to support two bills designed to improve the confidentiality of data and to give users the right to to repair their products. We can not wait to hear them at some point. ®
Sponsored:
Become a leader in pragmatic security
Source link
