Slashdot Mirror
Big Tech Squashes New York's 'Right To Repair' Bill (huffingtonpost.com)
Damon Beres, writing for The Huffington Post: Major tech companies like Apple have trampled legislation that would have helped consumers and small businesses fix broken gadgets. New York state legislation that would have required manufacturers to provide information about how to repair devices like the iPhone failed to get a vote, ending any chance of passage this legislative session. Similar measures have met the same fate in Minnesota, Nebraska, Massachusetts and, yes, even previously in New York. Essentially, politicians never get to vote on so-called right to repair legislation because groups petitioning on behalf of the electronics industry gum up the proceedings. "We were disappointed that it wasn't brought to the floor, but we were successful in bringing more attention to the issue," New York state Sen. Phil Boyle (R), a sponsor of the bill, told The Huffington Post.
I want the ability to repair my own devices. At the simplest level, even just replacing batteries in phones is something I want, and I chose my phone because it had that. Then, I can solder (but not at phone-type scales) and have modest knowledge about analog and digital circuits, and have successfully repaired consumer electronics I bought in the 1970's and 80's.
But I have to question whether this is something that matters to most people. Because if it does, it's really hard to see it. People having been moving their purchase decisions more and more away from devices that can be repaired, towards "sealed shut" devices, or devices with heavy vendor lock-in and/or DRM.
If people want this ability, they need to consider it when buying things, so that there is an economic incentive for companies to sell devices that can be repaired. Money talks, bullshit walks. If it's more profitable to sell non-repairable devices, companies will! It has to be more profitable to sell repairable ones instead, which means people need to make sure those succeed in the market, and the "welded shut and DRMed" devices fail.
So far I have seen no sign that people want anything but "welded shut and DRMed". They seem very happy to buy such things. So: company is happy because they get lock-in and new sales instead of repairs, and consumers are happy, because ... well I dunno why actually, but clearly they are, because that's what they throw their money at.
just wait for just wait for cars to be this way! dealer only is they really want and with that even stuff like an oil change may cost $50 + labor.
Given that these tech firms pushed to destroy this, the alternative should have been to mandate a minimum 3-year warranty (I'm looking at you, Apple!)
AC comments get piped to
Some electronics are now designed to be unfixable.
For example, I own an xbox 360. The DVD drive on it is a bit dodgy - it works, barely, unreliably. I'd like to replace it, but I can't. Firstly because it uses a non-standard power connector, but more seriously because the 360 DVD drive is paired with the security chip on the mainboard. The board stores a serial number for the drive, and queries the drive serial on boot - if they don't match, the console disables itsself. It's a measure to prevent piracy (somehow), but it also makes replacing the drive impossible.
The iPhone now does a similar thing with the fingerprint sensor. It's a very common form of failure, as the sensor is delicate and exposed to the outside world. But the phone stores the sensor serial in secure memory - if the sensor is replaced, the phone disables itsself.
There are actually quite a few layers of separation between votes and federal law.
Yes, by design. That's the whole point. Otherwise it's mob rule. Look at what direct democracy (by way of ballot initiatives) has done to California. The people who wrote the constitution were very smart to put in the checks and balances we have, and to structure the legislative branch as the bicameral institution that it is. If you don't like that a large organization is able to sit across the table from a legislator and persuade them that a bill is a bad idea, do what everyone else does: gather your like-minded friends and send someone of your OWN to meet with the same legislator and persuade her that she's misunderstanding the pros and cons of some piece of pending legislation. Or are you against the constitution's protections for your right (and everyone else's) to assemble as they see fit and express themselves as they see fit (say, through the offices of a lobbyist who know which people to talk to about which topic)? You can't have it both ways.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Our "democratic" process is just an elaborate dog-and-pony show designed to make us feel like we have a voice in governance, when really the only voices that matter are those of the super-rich.
People get really defensive when I point this out, because they like believing that we live in a democracy (ahem, constitutional republic), and that our representatives represent us, and that our votes matter.
Wanting something to be true does not make it true.
Close, but not quite.
The super-rich voices matter a lot, but (1) there are some issues where even an individual letter or call can tip the scale--not many, but they exist. (2) Congresspeople need so much money every day that most of the time, your money doesn't buy you a voice on an issue. Also, (3) there are LOTS of ways to be listened to--but they involve using leverage. You don't approach your person individually most of the time--you do it by supporting an organization that lobbies or otherwise works on issues you care about, whether they do that through legislators or through direct service or through the courts.
The ACLU does an amazing amount of work fighting for individual liberties, for example, filing briefs in lots of important cases throughout the country defending your rights. But whether you do it through the ACLU or the EFF or the AFL-CIO or even the NRA, unless you are amazing at influencing public discourse then you get YOUR influence by supporting the specific groups you mostly agree with. What the super-rich buy with money, you buy with a voting block and a block of voices.
(Also, by acting to influence your local and state reps.)
Real lawyers write in C++
Actually the rules on sub-committees, for right or wrong require that any group that follows procedures gets a say in the process before a bill can be forwarded to the floor for voting. This requirement generally exists to keep legislators from ramrodding a bill through to vote without the public getting any chance to have a say, but in this case, so-called interested party groups sponsored by the tech companies keep surfacing and demanding their $.02 worth and the time to comment. It is a filibuster forced by the 'interested' parties rather than the congress critters themselves. This kind of thing is a poster child for the initiative process, and really should be directed at the federal level rather than rely on a state by state, tooth and nail fight.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?