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.

Comments

Gum up the proceedings?

[_Sharp'r_]

. 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.

Leave it to the Huffington Post to somehow blame lobbyists without blaming the people they lobby. The only way they "gum up the proceedings" is by their influence with the leaders in the legislature, who are the ones who actually control the proceedings.

A bill doesn't get a vote in the legislature because not enough of the right members wanted to vote on it (for a variety of reasons, I'm sure). You can't blame that strictly on the lobbyists without removing the responsibility of the members of the NY State Assembly and Senate for what they decide to vote and pass.

Re:Gum up the proceedings?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Huffington Post doesn't want to blame the Politicians because the politicians responsible are DEMOCRATS. Huffington is a propaganda machine for the Democrat party. Nothing more.

Re:Gum up the proceedings?

[fustakrakich]

Leave it to the Huffington Post to somehow blame lobbyists without blaming the people they lobby.

Yeah well, don't blame them either. Unless you plan on voting them out, it makes you look fat. With a 95% reelection rate, the blame obviously lies elsewhere. The voters are rewarding bad behavior. Nothing can possibly change until that issue is acknowledged and dealt with.

Re:Gum up the proceedings?

[ScentCone]

This is correct.

Re:Gum up the proceedings?

[Archfeld]

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.

Re:Gum up the proceedings?

[_Sharp'r_]

Who writes the rules for the sub-committee? For the whole legislature? Who grants exceptions to them, or can change them?

That's right, the members and their leadership and their rules committee.

It's not like the process is embedded in the NY State Constitution, other than to give the legislature control over their own rules and procedures. You can't blame "the rules" in order to avoid blaming the people who make and control "the rules".

Maybe it's a good bill, maybe it's a bad one, but it wasn't passed because the members of the legislature decided not to pass it.

No User Serviceable Parts inside

[dak664]

It says so in the User Manual. You void the warranty if you open it. And non-approved repairs leave you liable for any subsequent damages to persons or property from fire, explosion, radiation, hearing or vision loss, or children swallowing small parts. And probably looking inside is a criminal violation of the terms of service.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[Anonymous Coward]

People being pushed to repairing the device themselves likely already has an expired or non-honored warranty on their hands to begin with. And if a right-to-tinker law were to get passed, any terms of service clause about "looking inside" would immediately lose any teeth it may or may not have.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[houstonbofh]

I still wonder why people pay so much for sealed black boxes that they never really own... The most I will spend on an un-serviceable item I can not root is under $100. And thanks to China, I can get top shelf Androids for that and root them easier then name brands!

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[YuppieScum]

"No User Servicable Parts" does not mean "No User Replacable Parts". True, you can't "service" a L-Ion battery, an ARM CPU or an LCD screen, but you can replace a battery/motherboard/display.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[TroII]

If it does what I want it to do, I really don't care about what's happening behind the curtain.

The entire topic is about when it stops doing what you want it to do, and it needs to be repaired.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I buy refurbished, off lease Lenovo computers. Both Lenovo laptops and desktop machines are made to be easily repaired if/when needed. Hardware Maintenance Manuals are readily available to download. with clear instructions how to remove and replace any part. Parts are readily available via eBay.

I am not afraid to take any device apart, especially if its out of warranty. If I can't fix it, or if I break it beyond repair, well it wasn't working anyway so nothing was lost. If I can fix it, I don't need to replace it yet.

  I really don't like the planned obsolescence culture that so many manufacturers today are pushing. So called "smart" phones are a good example: the manufacturers expect you to buy a new one every year whether the old one still works or not. If you get 1 update during that year, you are lucky. Most of these phones are glued shut to keep the user (do you really own the phone you bought?) from replacing a bad or failing battery, or a cracked screen or failed motherboard.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[Paleolibertarian]

If the device is in warranty then it's the manufacturers responsibility to repair or replace it assuming it hasn't been subjected to abuse which would void the warranty.

If the device is out of warranty due to expiration or abuse then the owner has every right to attempt repair. The manufacturer no longer has a say and the owner has all the power/responsibility for resulting "fire, explosion, radiation, hearing or vision loss, or children swallowing small parts."

The manufacturer has no obligation to supply repair procedures or to repair the product but the owner may repair or contract with a third party to repair. Caveat Emptor.

Any law which tries to force a manufacturer do anything it has not freely contracted to do is just plain wrong.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[macs4all]

No wonder you're likely a single person. You can't be bothered to care or even show that you care. Absolutely unattractive to any sort of potential mate.

Conversely., you're so busy typing command-line incantations into your fucking PHONE that your potential mate got bored and went home...

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[macs4all]

"No User Servicable Parts" does not mean "No User Replacable Parts". True, you can't "service" a L-Ion battery, an ARM CPU or an LCD screen, but you can replace a battery/motherboard/display.

Except the battery, the rest of your "component" replacement-examples are nothing more than module-level replacements.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[macs4all]

If you get 1 update during that year, you are lucky.

Maybe in the cheap Android world.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[macs4all]

If the device is in warranty then it's the manufacturers responsibility to repair or replace it assuming it hasn't been subjected to abuse which would void the warranty.

If the device is out of warranty due to expiration or abuse then the owner has every right to attempt repair. The manufacturer no longer has a say and the owner has all the power/responsibility for resulting "fire, explosion, radiation, hearing or vision loss, or children swallowing small parts."

The manufacturer has no obligation to supply repair procedures or to repair the product but the owner may repair or contract with a third party to repair. Caveat Emptor.

Any law which tries to force a manufacturer do anything it has not freely contracted to do is just plain wrong.

And that's why it will never happen. Not because of licensing; but rather, because of the First Sale doctrine. Once you purchase it, it's YOURS. The only power the OEM has WHATSOEVER is the right to refuse to honor a WARRANTY due to tampering during that period.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[Lotana]

This is why I buy refurbished, off lease Lenovo computers.

However, that means Lenovo as a company does not get a cent from that sale. Why should they continue making solid-engineered, easily-repaired devices when in the end it hurts them by losing potential customers to refurbishers? This is how planned obsolescence works. I hate it with a passion, but it is hard not to see the reason behind it.

I love my Thinkpad. I could of bought it used off someone, but instead I spent much more money to buy it directly from Lenovo. Just to show my support.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[exomondo]

The entire topic is about when it stops doing what you want it to do, and it needs to be repaired.

So you get it repaired under warranty. If it's out of warranty you can do what you like. But obviously if you are modifying the internals and you bring it in for a warranty repair the manufacturers dont want to be doing forensic analysis and then the inevitable argument about it to work out whether it was a manufacturing defect or the fault of your tinkering that caused the failure on a few hundred dollar phone.

With the tight level of integration of components that we see on devices now I can totally see their point, if you bring in a phone with a failed SoC how exactly are you going to prove it was a manufacturing defect and not your installation of that cheap replacement USB port? Everything is so tightly integrated that you can't really replace one little bit without potentially affecting a bunch of other sensitive components unlike on say, a PC, where you can replace the graphics card and it isn't going to affect the manufacturer's warranty on the CPU.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[exomondo]

I love my Thinkpad. I could of bought it used off someone, but instead I spent much more money to buy it directly from Lenovo. Just to show my support.

That's a very good point. Not all companies do this so people need to show their support, unfortunately they are more likely to buy Apple or Samsung devices and just complain about their lack of repairability, if it's not a deal-breaker (despite the availability of viable alternatives) then why change?

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[nukenerd]

Clearly, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to ensure that every design they ever produce is conducive to users performing any conceivable repair or replacement operation, regardless of hazard, liability, functionality, or reason.

It is up to the owner to decide what is conceivable or reasonable. Regarding hazardous, not everywhere in the world has the same silly legal system as the USA does, where apparently if Person A sticks a knife in Person B, then B can sue the knife manufacturer.

Never mind that the manufacturer's system is only functional with the manufacturer's parts

Not generally true, and would be even less so if things were easier to repair. In the world of cars there is a big industry independent of the original car makers making spare car parts.

or that there are other contracts (including service agreements) on other parts of the system

We are discussing repairing stuff out of warranty here as an alternative to tossing into the skip. We don't care about invalidating other service agreements. .

We could repair our electronics in 1985, and nothing should change since then!

The change we are objecting to is the deliberate obstruction of repair work. We accept that you cannot repair one of the million transistors inside a CPU chip like you could have repaired a 1950's radio by replacing a blown valve, but there is no technical reason and no ethical reason why you should be deliberately obstructed from replacing the CPU as a sub-assembly

The hivemind [Slashdot] couldn't be wrong, could it?

You are a member of a bigger hive mind - the general public one. Joe Sixpack is terrified by the idea of repairing anything, and even thinks that it might be illegal. That is why he is rolling over or is oblivious of this issue. Plus his obsession with the "slimness" of his i-stuff which does not help repairability. He wants his i-Thing to be a magic box of which only an Arch-Mage living on the other side of the rainbow knows the secret, and things like visible screws undermine his cosy fantasy. That would not matter if the last-year's smart phone or laptop he tosses into the recycling skip could be salvaged and repaired by someone who is not afraid of Joe's Arch-Mage. If it cannot be repaired however it is just a waste of world resources.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[dywolf]

they usually dodge the warranty anyway, so F it.
I've repaired million dollar test sets and multimillion dollar aircraft.

Gimme a screwdriver, a soldering iron, a hammer, some WD40, and some electrical tape, and i'll have it sorted in a jiffy.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[cbiltcliffe]

I'm pretty sure the battery would be considered a module, too.
Regardless, that's beside the point.
To use a car analogy: If my car's check engine light comes on, and I replace an oxygen sensor to fix it, have I not actually "repaired" the car, because all I did was replace the oxygen sensor "module?" Sure, I'm not pulling the sensor apart and figuring out what's wrong with it, but I'm still repairing the car by replacing the bad component.
Replacing a bad motherboard or display is just as much a repair as anything, because it takes a broken phone and returns it to fully operating condition.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[dak664]

Whoever sold that refurbished model is likely to pay more for used ones to refurbish, and those sellars in turn pay more to buy another, until that price increase trickles up to the manufacturer. An analogous appreciations applies to automobiles.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[macs4all]

I'm pretty sure the battery would be considered a module, too. Regardless, that's beside the point. To use a car analogy: If my car's check engine light comes on, and I replace an oxygen sensor to fix it, have I not actually "repaired" the car, because all I did was replace the oxygen sensor "module?" Sure, I'm not pulling the sensor apart and figuring out what's wrong with it, but I'm still repairing the car by replacing the bad component. Replacing a bad motherboard or display is just as much a repair as anything, because it takes a broken phone and returns it to fully operating condition.

Your logic is flawed, because you are trying to bend-over-backwards to argue (as usual on Slashdot).

If you pull the ECM and replace it because the O2 Sensor input failed, that's a Module-Level repair.

If you pull the ECM and find and replace the open resistor that is making the O2 Sensor input fail, then put the same ECM back into the vehicle, that's a Component-Level repair. Got it?

Simply replacing the O2 sensor, a Fuel Injector, a Spark Plug/Igniter; those are all components, because they are "atomic" as far as REPAIR goes; IOW, there is no "repairing" them, only REPLACING. Just like no one REPAIRS a bad Port-Driver transistor in a Microcontroller; because you um, Can't. All you can do is REPLACE the entire Microcontroller.

But the ABS controller it resides in is what is considered a "Module", so swapping IT out entirely is a Module-Level Repair. But, if you DO replace a Microcontroller with a bad Port-Driver transistor in your ABS controller, then stick that same ABS controller back into your vehicle, you effected a "Component-Level" repair.

But wholesale replacing of an ECM, ABS, Coil-Pack, Body-Control-Computer, Dashboard Unit, etc. that contains "atomic" components (ICs, transistors, diodes, capacitors, resistors, etc.) without troubleshooting/repairing at that level (assuming you can even get to that level due to encapsulation) is considered Module-Level repair.

A battery is generally considered a Component, even though most modern LiOn-type batteries actually contain a microcontroller on board. Here's what the industry defines as a "module".

But a repair is a repair, and I didn't mean to imply that one was less valid than another; just that, on some devices, "component level" repair by the average person is in no way practical. And mobile devices fall squarely into the "cannot troubleshoot at the component-level" category.

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[exomondo]

He omitted his formatting, seems you needed it:

<sarcasm> ... </sarcasm>

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[dryeo]

Not generally true, and would be even less so if things were easier to repair. In the world of cars there is a big industry independent of the original car makers making spare car parts.

Which sadly took laws to enable. Generally the car manufacturers are like so many and will put up as many road blocks as possible to stop you from servicing your car or paying someone besides the manufacture.
I'll note that the car manufacturers are now trying to use the electronic/computer parts of their cars to force you to the manufacturer

Re:No User Serviceable Parts inside

[cbiltcliffe]

But a repair is a repair, and I didn't mean to imply that one was less valid than another; just that, on some devices, "component level" repair by the average person is in no way practical. And mobile devices fall squarely into the "cannot troubleshoot at the component-level" category.

Ahh, that's the problem. See, you were the first person to mention component vs module, while the rest of us were just talking about repairs in general. To me, your wording implied that a module replacement wasn't really a "repair" because you were just replacing a module. Maybe I read into it something that wasn't there.

I agree with what you're saying, but I'd go one further: Any repair, component or otherwise, of virtually anything by the average person is completely impractical.

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[lesincompetent]

The rest of the world calls it corruption.
The US calls it 'lobbying'.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[houstonbofh]

And I call it "idiots" for buying a sealed box like that with more then beer money.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[ScentCone]

The rest of the world calls it corruption.
The US calls it 'lobbying'.

No, the US calls it "freedom of assembly and speech," and it's protected under the very first amendment of the constitution. Let me guess, you'd like to reserve the right to get a few of your like-minded friends together and perhaps send one of them to talk to a committee chair about some piece of pending tech- or science-related legislation so they can avoid screwing it up ... but you'd like to silence other people that you don't like from doing exactly the same thing.

Or would you prefer that nobody gets to talk to legislators? Or that you only get to talk to them if millions of people also get to, simultaneously? There's a reason that it makes sense to form groups (like, say, The Association Of Concerned Scientists or the League Of Open Source Protector Justice Warriors or the Sierra Club, or the NAACP or the NRA or whatever) to allow lots of people to pool their resources and speak with one voice when it suits them to do so. You want corruption? Ban the free speech and free association that allows such groups to exist and lobby for what's important to them - watch what happens then.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS .... it's only lobbying if people with a different agenda do it. If you do it, it's freedom of speech.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[fnj]

The rest of the world calls it corruption

The US calls it "freedom of assembly and speech"

That's twice you have made an ass of yourself on this topic. I was trying to figure out what elaborate joke you were playing that was eluding me, but [shudder] I think you're absolutely on the level with your dreck. Go shill somewhere else.

Only in your labyrinthine mind does freedom of assembly have anything whatever to do with lobbying, aka subversion and corruption.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you sincerely believe that it's only about free speech? That no money is involved here? The fact that the mony exchange happened years ago (campaign funds) is irrelevant.
"That's a nice seat you have there Senator. It would be a shame if someone else got elected next time, wouldn't it Senator?"

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you seriously just pull the fucking "freedoms" speech on LOBBYING?
Holy fuck. This is a new level of retarded.

You are very naive. Extremely naive even, if you think this is purely about discussion.
These people get paid off out the ass.
America is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet for people being paid off to turn their head so fast they can't see stars.
Hell, it is basically the biggest reason America has such a high GDP, because companies know they can abuse the FUCK out of the tax laws and lobby local and national government to keep off their back.

This is exactly the same as the legal system where the richest person(s) wins.
It needs to be fixed. This is a problem. Lobbying is a problem.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[Sarten-X]

Actually, it's right there in the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Every signed petition form and written letter is following the same legal channel as a lobbyist. A lobbyist just opens the discussion by saying "I represent this many people associated with this organization, and they have this concern". A Washington Post op-ed piece says it well:

How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?

Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world calls it corruption

The US calls it "freedom of assembly and speech"

That's twice you have made an ass of yourself on this topic. I was trying to figure out what elaborate joke you were playing that was eluding me, but [shudder] I think you're absolutely on the level with your dreck. Go shill somewhere else.

Only in your labyrinthine mind does freedom of assembly have anything whatever to do with lobbying, aka subversion and corruption.

Oh, so unions are bad too?

Or is their "lobbying" OK?

Because this is the lobbying they do:

New bill could crush Airbnb’s New York business

ALBANY – The state legislature delivered a body blow to Airbnb Friday, passing a bill that imposes hefty fines that start at $1,000 for apartment rentals of less than 30 days — which are illegal and which are a big part of the apartment-sharing site’s business.

“I’m elated,” said Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal (D-Manhattan), the chief sponsor in the Democratic-controlled Assembly.

“You should know who your neighbor is and what happens when people rent out their apartments on Airbnb is you get strangers. Every night there could be different person sleeping in the next apartment and it shatters that sense of community in the building. It also can be dangerous.”

The measure now awaits Gov. Cuomo’s signature.

New Yorkers who advertise their apartments on Airbnb and similar sites for less than 30 days would face fines that start at $1,000 for the first offense, $5,000 the second time and $7,500 for the third violation.

...

The bill was backed by the powerful Hotel Trades Council...

Ahhh, the Hotel Trades Council, full name "The New York Hotel Trades Council, AFL-CIO"

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as the summary and the reporting is to be trusted. I know, my neck beard went up on the "gum up the proceedings" too. If a lobbyist can prevent a legislative process from proceeding out of the space legislated for it, things are indeed inefficient and potentially corrupted.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[lesincompetent]

No, the US calls it "freedom of assembly and speech," and it's protected under the very first amendment of the constitution.

What a peculiar spin you've got there!
It is well known that the US is not a democracy but a plutocracy so even if i were to concede your point i would be simply pointing out another way for the rich to have their way against the public interest, simply because granting this (very much bent) definition of "freedom of speech and assembly" grants them the economic upper hand.
I don't care how you spin it, anything against the public interest is clearly IMMORAL.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[ScentCone]

It is well known that the US is not a democracy but a plutocracy

No it's not well known, but it is frequently asserted by people who want to spin things that way.

I don't care how you spin it, anything against the public interest is clearly IMMORAL.

So, people used to argue that abolishing slavery was against the public interest, as it would damage the economy, ruin long-held family estates, etc. Would you consider abolishing slavery to be immoral? No? I see.

So it comes down to what you think is "in the public interest." I, for example, don't think it's in the public interest to establish and maintain a dependency-creating welfare state. So, you think I should be silenced by the government if I and other people who agree with me were to (so that we could go about our daily work, because we do work) pool our resources and send a person to talk to legislators on our behalf? You really think it's immoral for me to express my opinion, or enlist someone to help me do so? Or is it only immoral if I make more than $50k a year? Or does it become immoral when I make $150k a year? At which point, in your world view, are people suddenly evil an immoral when they seek to persuade legislators to see things their way? When they own four televisions, or only three?

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[ScentCone]

That's twice you have made an ass of yourself on this topic.

And here you are, unable to address the substance of the matter and instead relying on lazy, juvenile ad hominem. And pretending that you can't grasp that getting together to form an association (say, with the purpose of forwarding the interests of the association's members, including as matters that the association's members care about become subject to new legislation or regulation) isn't EXACTLY the sort of thing the nation's founders sought to protect when they prohibited the government from infringing on the forming of such groups in the First Amendment. Or did you think they only meant that you were free to assemble into a mob in the street?

Only in your labyrinthine mind does freedom of assembly have anything whatever to do with lobbying, aka subversion and corruption.

You don't actually understand what lobbyists do, do you? You don't even understand why (for example) twenty software companies or twenty bakeries or twenty dog breeders might find it more useful to send someone to talk to the chair of some senate committee and say, "I'm here on behalf of 20 people who all agree that you need to look at this bill from a different point of view..." instead of all twenty of those busy people each doing it on their own. If you can't muster the intellectual honesty to understand that, assume it's 20,000 people who all agree about something, and want their point of view represented to key regulators and lawmakers and executives. Should all 20,000 individually camp outside congressional hearings, demanded to talk? Or might it make more sense to have someone do that for them, explaining who they are and why?

Your idea of "corruption" is "people I don't like assembling into groups and expressing their wishes." How does that become corruption? Is it NOT corruption if a software developer manages to get 10 minutes of a congressman's time to explain encryption issues, but it somehow IS corruption if that very same person is there having the same conversation on behalf of 200 software companies who all have the same issues? Why? Be specific about at which point the corruption actually takes place.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[thegarbz]

freedom of assembly and speech

Freedom of assembly and speech is currently reserved for people with enough money to buy the right to that assembly. You don't have that "freedom".

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[ScentCone]

So let me get this straight. You think that if five people get together and mow lawns for a living, it's perfectly OK if they (or just one of them) appears before their local government to explain why some pending rule or law about fertilizer use is a bad thing. It's probably also OK with you if all five of them say to the politician proposing the new law that if it gets passed, they're never going to vote for or support that person again, and will actively support their opponents. Is that corrupt, to you? No?

OK, what if ONE of those five delivers that exact same message, and tells the politician that he's speaking on behalf of five people. Is it corrupt then? No?

OK, what if those five people realize that it makes a lot more sense for them to incorporate their business. And as business owners, they recognize that the politician's proposed new law is going to severely damage their business's prospects. Are you saying that they, as the owners of the business, have lost the first amendment's protections of their free speech because they are before their elected representative as a business that operates in that politician's jurisdiction? Is that corrupt, then? Why? In what way have those five people, speaking as one to preserve their business, suddenly become corrupt? Be specific.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[ScentCone]

Freedom of assembly and speech is currently reserved for people with enough money to buy the right to that assembly. You don't have that "freedom".

So, you and ten people, or a thousand, want to form a group because you have something in common. Please detail what is stopping you from doing that. Specifically.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[rastos1]

There's a reason that it makes sense to form groups (...) to allow lots of people to pool their resources and speak with one voice when it suits them to do so.

I have a question: how many people are represented by the lobbyist? My guess is that they will fit into one room. Are you saying that if I grab the same number of friends at the local pub, then I have the same chances?

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[ScentCone]

Oh, I read your post. It was typical anti-business drivel. You think that when people form a business, they give up their freedom of speech.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[exomondo]

A lobbyist just opens the discussion by saying "I represent this many people associated with this organization, and they have this concern".

...and also here is a buttload of "campaign donations" to make you see it our way.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[lesincompetent]

No it's not well known, but it is frequently asserted by people who want to spin things that way.

Believe whatever makes you sleep at night.

So, people used to argue that abolishing slavery was against the public interest, as it would damage the economy, ruin long-held family estates, etc. Would you consider abolishing slavery to be immoral? No? I see.

You're being willfully trollish and ignorant. We're done.

So it comes down to what you think is "in the public interest."

Very easy to tell when you're not being willfully trollish and ignorant. But then again your whole thought process could be flawed courtesy of the horribly butchered american indoctrinational system.

I, for example, don't think it's in the public interest to establish and maintain a dependency-creating welfare state.

There we go, now you tore off your mask. Just another right wing reactionary propagandist at work.

people suddenly evil an immoral when they seek to persuade legislators to see things their way?

Yes, because legislators ought to act in the public interest because - as it is the case for the US - the alternative is plutocracy.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's put it this way: freedom to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances does not imply that it should be done behind closed doors and without presence of the public. Also, if the Government is delegated (elected) by the People, then it is actually the People that is being petitioned, and the People should at least have the full view of the topic in hand so that they could react and express their criticism, or dissent. Therefore, lobbying should be open and transparent, i.e. not done in "lobbies".

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[dywolf]

Is that you Ted Cruz?
these arguments were tired when you first defended the buying of politicians two years ago, and they're still tired now.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[dywolf]

wow the shills for the Chamber of Commerce and FEE are out in force today.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[dywolf]

so instead we should have a weak government that cant actually address the needs of the people?

lobbyists have always been around even int eh days of kings and queens. people seeking to peddle and obtain influence.

that doesn't mean that the problem lies in the strength of government itself, with the implication that the solution is a weak one.

the problem is in the strength of the people, government and citizen, specifically their strength of character.
the solution is in installing people of character, and creating or maintaining oversight for when they do act inappropriately. by say preventing or restricting acceptable lobbying, and ever better: actually voting the bums out when you're dissatisfied instead of reelecting them anyway 96% of the time.

the east solution is rarely the best.
the best typically takes work, which is why "democracy is the finest form of government...if you can keep it" (paraphrase)
and keeping it means being involved and vigilant and willing to put in the effort.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[dywolf]

you've certainly earned your 8 pieces of silver for the day.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[dywolf]

Well, then what word would you use?

what word describe it when the mass citizenry of the nation gets its concerns addressed to their satisfaction less than 10% of the time, but when broken down along financial term, the folks below the 1% find that satisfaction less than 1% of the time, but the top 1% find that satisfaction more than 30% of the time?

sure sounds like the rich get an awful lot more power and influence to me.
now what's the word for that?

gee, I think its "plutocracy":

government by the wealthy.
a country or society governed by the wealthy.

Sure seems to fit the situation.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[ScentCone]

Actually no, I don't have multiple ID's, it's just that some people are smarter than you and can actually read.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[david_thornley]

GP does have some legitimate points (although I disagree with his politics). Legislators should act in the public interest, true. How are they supposed to know what is in the public interest? If they talk to nobody, they miss a lot. If they try to talk to everybody, they can't, and get a potentially distorted view.

Now, suppose I talk to a legislator. How do I know what the public interest is? I'm competent to speak about my interests, not about yours. I'm also reasonably competent to tell the legislator some of the ramifications of a proposed bill on some technical issues, and certainly not on farm issues. It appears to me that, to best serve the public interest, I should tell the legislator what I know about, and the legislator should give that the consideration it deserves. Since the legislator can't talk to everyone, I need to realize that the legislator is very likely not to talk to me.

Now, if ten thousand of my close personal friends and I think pretty much alike on an issue, it's reasonable for us to pick out one among us, preferably one with actual people skills, and send that person to talk to the legislator about our interests and what issues we see in our areas of expertise. How reasonable is it, then, for us to decide on a few people and pay them to work full-time to represent our interests? (It may not be practical for us to send individuals when they're available. A trip to Washington, D.C. takes time and money.) If we encounter someone with better people skills and connections who can understand our positions well enough to represent us, how reasonable is it for us to hire this person?

I see no bright line here, no point at which we can confidently agree is the dividing line between good and bad lobbying.

It is reasonable, in my opinion, to object to the role of campaign contributions in lobbying. It is reasonable to object to organizations that are not primarily lobbying groups (like unions and businesses) using their members' or stockholders' money for political purposes they oppose (particularly considering the state of corporate governance these days). I don't see it as reasonable to object to the formation of special interest groups and their hiring of specialists to represent their interests before legislators.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[david_thornley]

I'm curious whether you have any source for your figures outside your imagination. Most laws tend to represent my interests, either in doing things I like or in not really affecting me. There are a lot of exceptions, but the government does significantly more than 1% of what I want it to do, and it does considerably more that I think it should than what I think it shouldn't, and I'm well below the 1% (although still in the upper 10%).

Since you use implausible figures with no obvious support, I don't know what the "situation" is that you refer to.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[vandamme]

In New York, we call it "business as usual".

just wait for cars to be this way! dealer only is

[Joe_Dragon]

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.

It is clear. Just look.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

fvck Apple, Samsung et all, ad naseum...

[FudRucker]

if it costs too much to repair the broken phones & gadgets will end up in a landfill and consumers will just buy new, but that is probably what the big corpirates had in mind anyway, those bastards are the kinds of bastards that killed Kenny

Re:fvck Apple, Samsung et all, ad naseum...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. England got 1984. But the USA got Brave New World.

Re:fvck Apple, Samsung et all, ad naseum...

[Bing Tsher E]

In the area of desktop PCs, the mantra of 'recycling' is already being used to rather aggressively transfer all 'used' computers out of local communities and into operations that dismantle and destroy them.

My local Goodwill sells a lot of nice keyboards and mice. All the CPU boxes get scrapped by Dell. All that nice hardware, a lot of which would live a second life very well running Linux or a BSD operating system.

Re:fvck Apple, Samsung et all, ad naseum...

[spire3661]

"All that nice hardware, a lot of which would live a second life very well running Linux or a BSD operating system."

NO. All that old hardware uses way too much power. Almost any consumer PC before Core2Duo should be retired as a power hog and replaced with a SoC of some kind.

Re:fvck Apple, Samsung et all, ad naseum...

[Bing Tsher E]

The 'nice' keyboards are new enough that they probably came from computers with Core2Duo or newer.

What exactly do you know about the computers that are currently being destroyed? Most of them are new enough to be power efficient. We're not talking about Pentium Pro machines.

But save a few watts of power, and use ten times that much replacing the hardware every other year.

mmm, good

[fyngyrz]

Sheep stew cooked up by our very own oligarchy, with just a soupçon of lip-service.

Re:mmm, good

[fustakrakich]

Sheep stew cooked up by our very own oligarchy

Actually, the sheep are doing the cooking and serving themselves.

Re:mmm, good

[fyngyrz]

Nah. Cooking's being done by the legislators, their appointed minions, and the courts.

Congress: 94% re-election rate last time around. Justices: "Constitution? Why, I had a bowel movement just yesterday, thank you."

The sheep are just milling around confused, as is the habit of sheep.

While I agree with that...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's become difficult to always ensure the product you're buying is the revision that is still unbrickable. Just look at the WRT54G for instance. There was a period where people were still buying thinking they were getting the earlier edition when they were actually getting models with less ram/flash. Some manufacturers even changed cpu architectures under the same model number without external indications on the packaging which version was inside.

Re:While I agree with that...

[houstonbofh]

And I noticed right after that people in the modding community started recommending Buffalo... Seems the system works for educated consumers that give a crap.

The real vote has already been cast long ago

[SuperKendall]

If people wanted more repairable devices, they would have bought them.

Instead consumers have, in droves, chosen to buy MORE RELIABLE sealed devices that they do not have to screw with.

I'm not just talking about the iPhone, or the other Android phones that all followed suit. I'm talking about cars, about appliances, almost everything is more more contained, much better sealed, and much harder to repair.

If the world wants more "repairable" things then by all means make them and ell them. But do not demand that companies ruin products in the pursuit of a goal few are interested in.

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[Stickasylum]

Ha ha ha ha "more reliable" ha ha ha ha. What on earth makes you think that reliability is the reason that companies put no-third-party-repair clauses in their contracts?

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[fustakrakich]

The bill should be called 'an entitlement to have something provided to the bigger block of voters at the expense of a smaller block of voters' bill.

Welcome to the West, comrade!

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[Kneo24]

Why do you equate the fact that they're sealed to them being more reliable? You can make a reliable device that can also be repaired on an as needed basis.

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[thegarbz]

The usual all or nothing approach.

Consumers haven't spoken because we didn't get a voice. We are presented with a wide range of irreparable devices to chose from. I vote with my wallet so ... move to an Amish community?

As for reliability. That was a really good joke. Implying that you can have reliable or repairable but not both. Classic. You should do a stand-up gig, you'll raise the roof, only to have people break down and cry after when they remember the devices they had that lasted 10+ years without issue.

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[macs4all]

Reliable? An iPhone? You must be kidding right? Have you ever seen or even heard of one?

Oh, wait, your whole post is arguing that locked-down unrepeairable crap is somehow more reliable. Yep, the iPhone got much more reliable after the pentalobular screws.

You are either trolling, or are a paid shill.

Actually, they did.

It isn't hard to find Pentalobe screwdrivers. Yay, free market!

And Pentalobe screws are MORE user-friendly than #00 Philips they replaced; because it is FAR FAR FAR too easy for people not used to handling precision screw sizes to STRIP the HEADS of the Philips screws than it is the Pentalobe screws.

Not everything has to be a slotted or Phillips. That's why there are already dozens of screw/bolt head designs. Because some of them were created because they are actually BETTER DESIGNS. And guess what? Both the Torx and Pentalobe heads fall into that category.

Get over it.

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[iris-n]

I have been repairing my own smartphones since smartphones exist, and never had a problem with Phillips screws. And if they are as bad as you claim, it is a bit of a mystery why every single manufacturer but Apple uses them. Surely at least one would have seen the light and gone with something different no? Maybe they would convert to pentalobular, since they are so great.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that there is something wrong with Phillips screw. It is perfectly reasonable to think that there can be a better design. But to think that in 2009 one can really invent a useful new design of screwhead is just laughable. If they actually wanted to go with something better than Phillips they would have gone with Torx. The only reason to invent their own standard is to make it more difficult for people to repair their own phones.

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[macs4all]

Maybe they would convert to pentalobular, since they are so great.

Pentalobe screws are Patented; precisely for that reason.

If they actually wanted to go with something better than Phillips they would have gone with Torx.

They did that, too, long, long ago; but I think that they wanted something that was easier for precision hand-assembly than the Torx. At that size, a Torx head looks like a damned DOT to the naked eye; but the Pentalobe has much larger "features" (lobes), that the assembler can visually locate without necessarily resorting to magnification,plus the "lobes" are much "meatier" (as opposed to the tiny "teeth" of Torx at that size), which means far more torque can be applied before camming-out (which Phillips screws are actually DESIGNED to do). And the final assembly of iPhones is still a mostly-manual operation.

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[sootman]

> Instead consumers have, in droves, chosen to buy MORE RELIABLE
> sealed devices that they do not have to screw with... I'm talking about
> cars, about appliances, almost everything is more more contained,
> much better sealed, and much harder to repair.

Except that most appliances I own, major or minor, from toasters to home AC units, are LESS reliable now than they were decades ago.

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[iris-n]

Maybe they would convert to pentalobular, since they are so great.

Pentalobe screws are Patented; precisely for that reason.

Holy shit! You are seriously claiming that the reason other manufacturers don't use pentalobular screws is because they are patented? So you predict that when the patents expire evereyone is going to switch to them? Ignoring the fact that none of them switched to the patent-free Torx? And ignoring that Samsung, LG, etc. have shitloads of cash and they could have developed their own screw heads if they thought it was necessary?

Come on, do you actually believe this nonsense, or is Apple paying you to repeat it?

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[macs4all]

ome on, do you actually believe this

The parts that I actually said, yes.

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[Trogre]

I was with you all the way up to "MORE RELIABLE".

Appliances and cars may well be more reliable in the first year or two but after that the failure rate jumps up massively. These things are built to work with spec for a limited time, but not to last.

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[zedaroca]

Instead consumers have, in droves, chosen to buy MORE RELIABLE sealed devices that they do not have to screw with.

No, they have chosen to buy MORE SHINY devices. The very fact that they want to be able to fix these things should be indication enough that they are not reliable. Usually they are devices with new functionalities, sometimes actually better devices, that also happen to be sealed. But the sealing and the locked in proprietary repairs are not related to the reliability of the devices (as shown by the need to repair), or to the reasons why people chose them. Water proofing is one exception I can think of.

do not demand that companies ruin products in the pursuit of a goal few are interested in.

What they are trying to demand, it seems, is that the companies provide information on how to repair, and that they don't ruin the devices people sucessfully repaired (like when apple bricked people's phones).

I agree with your point that people should talk more with their wallets.

Re:The real vote has already been cast long ago

[david_thornley]

My '50s era vehicle is more reliable than my 2010+ vehicle could ever be.

How do you find a 2010+ vehicle that bad? My experience with modern vehicles is that, if you don't get into accidents, you do routine maintenance for ten years and it's still reliable. My current 2008 Honda Civic failed me once because I got into an accident, and twice with a bad battery. Try doing that with a 1958 vehicle lasting to 1966. It would be a rustbucket and rattletrap.

1960s Warranty Laws

[retroworks]

I'm a huge fan of EFF, iFixit, and other groups that supported and pushed this legislation. I hope my Monday morning quarterbacking isn't misconstrued. But I studied the USA's warranty and repair laws passed in the 1960s (Ralph Nader's origins), which were in response to Vance Packard's 1960 book "The Waste Makers". The allegations of "planned obsolescence" really alarmed people and led to the strongest car and electronics warranty laws in the world. Those laws are all completely out of date (predating software), but trying to start from scratch may be a tactical error.

Today's repair advocates, are in the right place... but perhaps missing out by by not recruiting some Consumer Rights veterans. Maybe they could market this to the retired people who remember the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 etc. Seniors who, replaced their own auto spark plugs, they tend to vote in high numbers and could have been sending a signal to legislators. The advocacy I saw for this Right to Repair law was promoted by a younger, cooler, Makerspace set, I didn't see many allies from Ralph Nader's generation. It would be hard to win funding of VA hospitals without marketing it to/through the war Veterans. Just my 2 cents.

Re:It is clear. Just look.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, just because not enough people are voting for YOU, don't get salty and complain that the system's fixed.

Vote fraud aside, the last say still comes from the ballot box. If your constituents don't appear to vote in agreement with you, it might be because they don't agree with you.

Re:just wait for cars to be this way! dealer only

[thinkwaitfast]

just wait for just wait for cars to be this way

The majority of Slashdot is pushing for this. People want autonomous cars that you call on demand and don't have to own or maintain themselves.

and it goes how far?

[supernova87a]

So -- anything that goes wrong with your iPhone, computer, etc. is required to be covered by a manufacturer issued repair guide that's available to the customer? Since when has that been required for anything you buy, even remotely? Not even your dumb refrigerator manufacturer is required to tell you how to fix it.

And in what level of detail / remedy would it have to explain how to repair the item? My laptop's GPU has a few transistors that got fried. Are they saying Apple has to tell me how to disassemble the chip, do nanosurgery on it and refabricate a few layers of silicon? Or that "get a new laptop" is sufficient to fix the issue?

Nice sentiment, but full of holes in how it would be implemented.

Re:and it goes how far?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know that it was ever required, but in the 50's and 60's it was common for most things you could buy to have schematics available from the manufacturer, or sometimes even include the schematics with the device.

That started to die out in the 1970's and 80's, and was just about 100% dead by the 90's.

Re:and it goes how far?

[macs4all]

I don't know that it was ever required, but in the 50's and 60's it was common for most things you could buy to have schematics available from the manufacturer, or sometimes even include the schematics with the device.

That started to die out in the 1970's and 80's, and was just about 100% dead by the 90's.

Yes, as the active device (transistor) count went from the single-digits to MILLIONS, and the number of leads on the active components went from 3 to 16 to 240 BGA "pins" you can't even SEE, and the pitch of the component leads and PCB traces went from .030" to .005", and the average number of layers of the PCB went from 1 to 10, with many signal paths ENTIRELY "buried".

Can't imagine what ever happened to that Sam's Photofacts for your iPhone. Must be a conspiracy!

Re:and it goes how far?

[twistedcubic]

Your post is FUD, but I don't see any malice here. You just neglected to read he bill. It does not say what you think it says.

Re:and it goes how far?

[Gilgaron]

As far as I know there are laws regarding repairability of cars and non-exclusivity of parts. On some models you have to do silly things like take the front bumper off to replace the headlamps, but I've heard that Europe is going to pass laws about how the bulbs and batteries will need to be user replaceable with minimal effort. For examples like your fridge, generally the diagrams and parts are readily available. My washer and dryer would be in a landfill somewhere by now if not for diagrams and parts being available, with labor costing what it does for them to be repaired by a professional. If the diagrams were not available for appliances you'd probably see similar calls for legislation there, and in many cases the electronics are more costly than the appliances.

Re:and it goes how far?

[chihowa]

It's still not uncommon for appliances and (the electrically simple portions of) durable goods. My c. 2000 clothes washer and dryer, c. 2005 dish washer and furnace, and brand new refrigerator have schematics printed on the inside of the unit or in the manual (though with the logic boards treated as black boxes).

All cars, up to this day, have schematics available from the manufacturer, though sections of the logic boards are again often treated as black boxes.

The logic circuits are often fairly simple and bad components can be identified and replaced, but few people would refab the PCB and rebuild the board from scratch, so it's not surprising that they don't provide schematics for those components.

Beyond replacing discrete modular components in most consumer electronics, there's not much repair that you can do that would require schematics. The biggest issue is the manufacturers gluing the case shut and making the modular components difficult to get at without damaging them.

Re:and it goes how far?

[ToddInSF]

Wouldn't really be that difficult to have a blow-up diagram of the product on-line to consult. If a product is simply not user-end repairable then your questions and accusation about this legislation is irrelevant.

What exactly are you objecting to ?

The manufacturers that wish for an advantage would make their products more repairable, more modular, more INTELLIGENT. You'd still be free to buy cheap shit products designed to become quickly obsolete, and people with the intelligence and curiosity to repair their own stuff would actually have a chance to do so.

Instead of this insane race to the bottom this country is on.

Requirement should be 3 year warranty

[Sebby]

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!)

Re:Requirement should be 3 year warranty

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumers should be given the choice - three year warranty on a repairable device, or the usual 90 day warranty replace it if it breaks device. Of course the warranty and repairable features come at a price; there's no way the manufacturer can be expected sell a product at a lower profit margin just because you want more for free

Want to guess which will be a complete failure in the marketplace?

Re:Requirement should be 3 year warranty

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Apple can stop making shit devices. The EU enforced a longer warranty and yet they still make a profit. Maybe you should stop being such a shill and pull your head from Zombie Job's asshole.

Re:Requirement should be 3 year warranty

[thegarbz]

or the usual 90 day warranty

Wait. WTF? There's places in the world where 90 days warranty is "usual"?

Re:Requirement should be 3 year warranty

[Sebby]

So what you're saying is you want a law mandating that you have to buy AppleCare? Why not... just buy it if you want it?

You're already paying a premium for products that are purposely designed to be non-repairable. Why should I be forced to have to pay an extra warranty premium for products that are basically designed to fail (MacBook Pro anyone? *) that I then can't try to fix myself (or choose who fixes it)?

(* yes, I know they 'recalled' this and will fix for free - but only after really bad PR/threats of class action lawsuits finally forced them into it)

Re:Requirement should be 3 year warranty

[4im]

In the EU, the minimum warrenty is 2 years. But! Only for the first half year, you can go back to the dealer to take back the faulty merchandise and it's automatically assumed to be a problem at the source (i.e. manufacturing). Afterwards, it's up to you, the consumer, to prove that there was a manufacturing fault, and you're in luck if the dealer will just accept the return or will send you home. Good luck bringing that proof, even if you're in the right.

Anecdote: I had a Nexus 5 go bad after 1 1/2 years - loss of the connection between microphone/speaker and the mainboard, then the connection of the screen also got flaky. The technician inspecting the phone judged I had dropped the phone or whatever, which I *know* not to have been the case. How do I go about proving I didn't mishandle that device? Yeah, right.

Check your facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some facts about "the last say [coming] from the ballot box".

That is why I said "it is clear, just look." The facts are as plain as day and in the public view. The super-rich get their measures passed, regardless of how the majority feel about them.

There are actually quite a few layers of separation between votes and federal law. And they are all (or at least, most) a matter of public knowledge. You just haven't done your homework.

Re:Check your facts.

[PCM2]

"Facts" and the Washington Times are two unrelated concepts. The Washington Times is owned and operated by the Unification Church, aka the "Moonies."

Re:Check your facts.

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:Check your facts.

[schwit1]

How is this any different than the major news networks and newspapers except Fox are sock puppets for the DNC?

Re:Check your facts.

[drinkypoo]

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.

How do you propose that they gather sufficient funding to be persuasive without corporate backing?

Re:Check your facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "ad hominem" and it's an indication that the previous poster could not properly refute the point, but still wanted to feel like he did.

Re:Check your facts.

[ScentCone]

How do you propose that they gather sufficient funding to be persuasive without corporate backing?

Do you think that the NAACP or the AARP or the Sierra Club or PETA etc are all funded by corporate backing? If you can't persuade enough people to agree with you (if a loopy aging hippy socialist from New England can raise millions and millions of dollars from starry-eyed individual donors, why is it you think this isn't possible?), you could always simply persuade a wealthy person (say, an Al Gore, or a George Soros) to throw - as they already do - millions of dollars into things they think should be more visible. This is happening right in front of your eyes every day - why does it seem unlikely to you?

Re:Check your facts.

[thegarbz]

So then by definition the only voices that get heard are those of powerful special interests, and the only chance to get a balanced view on a bill is if that bill interests either a corporation or a special interest group. Well at least all the common bills then get a good discussion, but it's a shame for all those small special bills where it isn't worth building up an entire consortium to argue for its merits.

Dollars talk. Don't pretend that what we have is a balanced system.

Re:Check your facts.

[ScentCone]

So what you're proposing is that regulators, executives, and legislators should NOT be allowed to talk to someone that many people get together and send to speak with them, but instead ALL of those people should descend upon Washington and say the same exact things thousands of times to the same few people?

Do you consider, for example, the millions of people backing Bernie Sanders to be a "powerful special interest group?" No? Why not? They gotten together, amassed a very large pile of money dedicated to forwarding a specific agenda, and they've got a person tapped to push that agenda on their behalf.

it's a shame for all those small special bills where it isn't worth building up an entire consortium to argue for its merits

Small, specialty regulations and laws are still fought for an against by special interests - they're just smaller numbers of people. It might be no more than literally a handful of people, some of which manage to get some speaking time at a hearing, or in a private meeting with their congress-creature. If the subject matter so arcane that one person's discussions with the committee or senator or whatever is wildly more persuasive than another's because she's better prepared, better informed, or more able to communicate, then yes - dollars talk because it costs money to have a very talented person making your case for you, if you're not going to go do it for yourself. Can you drop everything you're doing to go educate and persuade politicians on the merits of some arcane niche topic? No? What if you and a bunch of your colleagues carry on with your daily work and send a single talented person on your behalf? That's exactly balanced - you're balancing your need to influence the political process with your need to continue doing what you actually do for a living. There are professionals to help with that chore: they're called lobbyists. Have you ever met one, perhaps had a beer with one? No? You should.

Re:Check your facts.

[ScentCone]

The fundamental point is precisely that because money is speech, people can out speak other people even if they don't at all represent what those in a democracy want.

So that's what explains the fact that Hillary wildly outspending Bernie equates to his being wildly behind her in actual votes, right? Hmmm, not the case. Or the fact that the people who spent wildly more than Trump on their campaigns got the power of their party's nod, right? Except they didn't, at all.

Money isn't speech, money is money. It allows you to do things like hire campaign workers, run TV ads, etc. Are you saying that you are personally unable to vote your conscience because the person you don't like has fancier signs or more ads, and you just can't stop yourself for voting for them? Have you considered simply doing what you want regardless, just as millions of voters have done this year, despite the people they didn't vote for spending WAY more money?

Re:Check your facts.

[dywolf]

normally i'd agree with your assessment, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
for the WT, this is one of those times.

Re:Check your facts.

[ScentCone]

Straight democracy on matters of law are usually a disaster. Which is why we have a constitutional republic, at the federal level, to prevent that crap from happening.

Re:Check your facts.

[djinn6]

You point to California as an example of what not to do, but it is still the 3rd richest state by median household income, and 1st by GDP. Whatever mob rule is happening in California, it's doing far better than most other states.

Re:just wait for cars to be this way! dealer only

[Anonymous Coward]

Even normal, non-autonomous cars are becoming this way. It used to be it was easy to replace the vendor's radio system with your own using a standard form factor and connections. Now, it's "infotainment" tied closely into the rest of the car, and will throw codes if you try to remove it. Aftermarket alternatives are less and less available as this stuff becomes more and more proprietary.

DRM'ed internal buses in the car are also becoming a thing.

Self-driving or not, this is coming.

Re:How to repair government

[fustakrakich]

Your market collective sounds like a bunch of commies. Why should they decide what I can buy?

What is the next thing, forcing companies to repair stuff regardless of the economics of it?

No, the simple solution is to revoke all copyright and patent privileges from the product so that anybody can legally repair or sell replacements. See, the idea here is make sure we have an open market. We can't let people with all the money use government resources to close it off from the rest of us.

Re:Right to repair?

[TheGratefulNet]

"sorry, mr. repair guy, we noticed you replaced our Itchy-con caps with Nichicon ones. that voids your warranty. have a nice day."

Re:Simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't always know this though. Especially for larger devices that are comprised of many sub-components. For example, my father had a camper in which the heating controller failed. He asked if I could fix it, since it was electronic. When he showed the unit to me, it was completely encased in epoxy. This was 80's TTL tech, normally totally fixable, but not now. $300 for new unit that should have cost $30, tops.

Would that be something you'd actually think to look into when buying a camper? Maybe after getting burned once, sure, but not before.

This kind of crap is infesting everything you buy these days. It's quite difficult to avoid.

Re:Right to repair?

[SuricouRaven]

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.

Re:Missing something.

[phantomfive]

Making something repairable also makes it more complex, more expensive and probably less reliable.

Yeah whatever. They can start with not using patented screwdrivers so people can't get them. A lot of this has nothing to do with reliability.

Your role in politics

[SeattleLawGuy]

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.)

Thanks!

[SuperKendall]

I added that wording specifically to draw in people like you so I could add in more information on that point.

The fact is that all of my laptops with sealed batteries, all of my phones with sealed batteries, all modern cars I have owned have been MORE RELIABLE. They have had better battery life, and devices with sealed batteries have NEVER needed batteries replaced after years of service where all of my older devices with replaceable batteries had to have them replaced every six months to a year. I hated that, but need do that no longer...

If you want more battery life, everyone on earth but a handful of cranks have realized it's better to have a device with better battery life to being with, then bring an extra battery pack if needed (which can be much more portable then a spare battery for a phone since it can be any shape or size).

Ever actually READ a "right to repair" law?

[SvnLyrBrto]

We're not talking asinine BS like how the DMCA forbids you from modding your Playstation... on your own and with no interaction with, or aid from, Sony. Many of these laws place some very onerous requirements on the vendors.

They require vendors to surrender internal documentation, designs, schematics, and procedures to pretty much any random un-vetted third party that wants them. This includes software patches and updates, and sometimes even private signing keys. Sometimes the vendor is required to let these people piggyback on their own parts and supplies chain, rather than have the repair shops establish their own supplier relationships. They usually abrogate the usual NDA requirements for third-party partners. And they almost always require all of that with no compensation.

No company in their right mind would let that pass without fighting tooth and nail against it.

Re:Ever actually READ a "right to repair" law?

[macs4all]

We're not talking asinine BS like how the DMCA forbids you from modding your Playstation... on your own and with no interaction with, or aid from, Sony. Many of these laws place some very onerous requirements on the vendors.

They require vendors to surrender internal documentation, designs, schematics, and procedures to pretty much any random un-vetted third party that wants them. This includes software patches and updates, and sometimes even private signing keys. Sometimes the vendor is required to let these people piggyback on their own parts and supplies chain, rather than have the repair shops establish their own supplier relationships. They usually abrogate the usual NDA requirements for third-party partners. And they almost always require all of that with no compensation.

No company in their right mind would let that pass without fighting tooth and nail against it.

PRECISELY!

Re:Missing something.

[Man On Pink Corner]

The choice of screw is dictated by the tooling and equipment used to carry out final assembly. If a $20 patented screwdriver with a proprietary head design saves one second of production time per iPhone by doing a better job at guiding itself into the slot or being less likely to cam out when tightened, it doesn't take too long for it to pay for itself.

That's not to justify Apple's active interference with third-party repair shops. Just pointing out that when you're producing things at this scale, your profitability is influenced by the sum of a very large number of very trivial-sounding choices. Not everything that looks like a conspiracy is one.

Right to send to the landfill.

[hwstar]

Instead of right to repair, the current warranty offerings (90 days) are more like the right to throw away when it breaks and purchase a new product.

I can understand that some products due to their intricacy may be designed to not be serviceable by anyone but the manufacturer, but if that is the case, then a longer warranty period is justified to make up for the fact that it is unserviceable. I think the EU has the right idea with trading standards bureaus and statutory minimum warranty periods. (I will probably get arrows from my fellow America Citizens on this)

Re:Similar law exists in CA

[hwstar]

I guess there will be a lot of $99.99 devices offered in CA then!

Re:Next step: REFERENDUM

[hwstar]

Some states don't have initiative and referendum for issues like this. Texas, I'm talking to you!

These Liberal States...

[Bartles]

...aren't so Liberal, are they?

Re:These Liberal States...

[hwstar]

Liberal or Conservative doesn't matter when an industries bottom line is at stake. When this happens, the trade associations mobilize, and lobby the state legislature to trash the proposed bill. Money talks, and sensible legislation walks!

Shiny

[PopeRatzo]

"Big Tech" sounds like the name of a bluetooth enabled sex toy.

Re:Right to repair?

[drinkypoo]

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.

It's a PITA, but not impossible. You can extract the key if the drive is not completely dead. Or, if the PCB is still good, you can swap the PCB to another drive.

Re:It is clear. Just look.

[spire3661]

You would have a better argument if our choices weren't only Douche or Turd Sandwich.

Re:just wait for cars to be this way! dealer only

[spire3661]

Case law has already been settled on this for cars decades ago. At some point the tech shops are going to have to follow suit, the pressure is there, just like it was for cars.

Re:"I'm a loser."

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the systemic corruption levels in the American political system are obviously just the figment of the imagination of teenage angst. Your "adult" denial is endearing...

Re:is this something consumers care about?

[Kneo24]

There are businesses that make money doing exactly this with or without the manufacturer's support. This argument at this point has little to do with the end user at this point as most end users just buy new or send it off somewhere to be fixed. It's more about big business vs small business. The small business in this sense are the places that fix these things. Or imagine if you're a facility that does a lot of testing and one of your pieces of expensive equipment broke and you now can't fix it because a parts manual and a schematic are non-existent? Fixing it yourself would be cheaper. A lot of this boils down to cost of ownership. Manufacturer's hate lowering the cost of ownership as it means they can't keep selling brand new, which is what their argument ultimately boils down to. Imagine if cars were this way. They already are starting to to some degree.

Re:Right to repair?

[SuricouRaven]

I just have to hit the console until the drive opens. The point here is that repairing a device shouldn't involve a battle of skill between the designer and the user - if it's possible to repair a 360, it's only possible because some highly skilled hackers have been able to out-think the Microsoft engineers who were tasked to design a console with deliberate anti-repair measures built in.

Re:"I'm a loser."

[50000BTU_barbecue]

"adults" are some of the most delusional people I've met.

Re:Right to repair?

[thegarbz]

It's a measure to prevent piracy (somehow)

Easy answer there, the DVD drive in the XBox 360 is custom and is responsible for doing anti-piracy checks on the loaded disc. Early DRM breaking methods involved powering up the xbox, disconnecting the SATA cable from the drive during post and then plugging it into a PC and flashing new firmware onto the DVD drive. Lots of people fried units when they didn't realise the xbox had a floating ground and if you don't connect the metal of the inner chassis to the computer case first you get a spark.

Compared to that which is a somewhat legit reason for checking the DVD drive since the functionality can be compromised, the iPhone scenario is simply a dick move and their claims of doing it for security reasons was called out for the bullshit it was.

Re:Missing something.

[i.r.id10t]

If a $20 screw driver is making you mad you probably don't want to know about special purpose single use tools for car repair, gun smithing, etc.

Re:just wait for cars to be this way! dealer only

[macs4all]

Even normal, non-autonomous cars are becoming this way. It used to be it was easy to replace the vendor's radio system with your own using a standard form factor and connections. Now, it's "infotainment" tied closely into the rest of the car, and will throw codes if you try to remove it.

Honestly, I actually believe that the integration of "infotainment" systems has more to do with resource-sharing cost and space savings than proprietary lock-in.

I mean, how many REDUNDANT, separate displays and control-clusters do you need/can you fit in a frickin' CAR?

Now I DO think that some industry-standards (sort of like CAN, for example) could help a lot; but then a "car stereo" would have to get much more complex (and thus more expensive) to be able to display/control arbitrary "automotive" functions in addition to its primary duty of "entertainment".

At this point, a good bit of the "entertainment" stuff is expected to be transacted over Bluetooth from the phone sitting on the seat or in your pocket. You can still generally upgrade power amps and speakers; so it's just the "player" part that is harder to replace with the old-skool Pioneer Cassette Deck you can buy at Walmart.

But as I said, that is fast becoming irrelevant.

Re:Right to repair?

[macs4all]

Any gearhead should be able to open and fix stuff on their own. It's really not that hard, and you can buy everything everywhere. What's the point?

Never been inside of a cellphone, have you?

Re:Right to repair?

[macs4all]

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.

That was not an anti-consumer-repair measure; but rather, a CAREFULLY THOUGHT-OUT anti-SECURITY-CIRCUMVENTION measure.

Since, for very good security reasons, the Fingerprint Sensor ITSELF stores the Fingerprint data, if Apple had NOT taken pains to PAIR the SoC with the Fingerprint Sensor, ANYONE that acquired physical possession of your iPhone could simply replace YOUR fingerprint sensor with YOUR fingerprint data with THEIR fingerprint sensor with THEIR fingerprint data and VOILA!!! Instant Access!!!

And yet Apple is pilloried by idiots like you, for thinking this far ahead.

Re:Missing something.

[macs4all]

Making something repairable also makes it more complex, more expensive and probably less reliable.

Yeah whatever. They can start with not using patented screwdrivers so people can't get them. A lot of this has nothing to do with reliability.

And yet, lots of people sell Pentalobe Screwdrivers (including iFixit, who whined about them), and yet Apple has not taken a single one of them to court for Patent Infringement.

Maybe that's because it really WASN'T an anti-consumer measure at all; but rather, maybe, just maybe, a pro-reliability (MUCH harder to strip the head than a Phillips) measure.

Re:Missing something.

[phantomfive]

MUCH harder to strip the head than a Phillips

Pentalobe is definitely better than phillips, but they aren't as good as a hex screw imo (and yes, I have a pentalobe screwdriver)

Re:Right to repair?

[SuricouRaven]

Easy solution for that:

"New fingerprint sensor detected. For security reasons fingerprint identification has been disabled. Please enter your PIN or iTunes account to continue. Fingerprint recognition may be re-configured from settings."

Now everyone is happy. The phone gets repaired, and security cannot be compromised by replacing the sensor.

Re:Missing something.

[macs4all]

MUCH harder to strip the head than a Phillips

Pentalobe is definitely better than phillips, but they aren't as good as a hex screw imo (and yes, I have a pentalobe screwdriver)

Not sure what you are calling a "hex screw".

Re:Proof America Sucks.

[Swave An deBwoner]

Certainly there is some country in the world where an owner's right to repair has been established. America sucks so it's not America, but you sound like you know more.

Please tell me which countries enforce their citizens right to repair their devices. I want to find a country that doesn't suck the way America does. Thanks.

Re:Similar law exists in CA

[Swave An deBwoner]

The burden is on the manufacturer of the device to comply if the wholesale price of the device is $100 or more.

How is the state of California going to enforce this law for devices manufactured outside of the US (like, um, China)?

The only way I can think of would be to make it illegal to sell devices from manufacturers who don't comply, so they would have to go after the importers and vendors.

Re:Missing something.

[phantomfive]

Not sure what you are calling a "hex screw".

_____

Re:Missing something.

[macs4all]

Not sure what you are calling a "hex screw".

_____

That's what I thought.

They suck when they get vewy, vewy tiny. Round-out in a microsecond.

Re:Right to repair?

[brantondaveperson]

If the phone didn't disable itself when the fingerprint sensor was replaced, then you'd be able to replace it with a fake sensor that always unlocked the phone for you. This would be a very significant security hole, and you can bet slashdot would be all up in arms about it - and probably suggesting the exactly pairing protocol that you're complaining about.

Re:just wait for cars to be this way! dealer only

[Voyager529]

Uhm...no.

What display has been *removed* from a car since the inception of the infotainment system? Cars still have both dashboards and radio readouts. In many cases the climate controls have indeed been consolidated into the screen, but the standard set of knobs were their own readout. Not that hard, and it's not like the space has been more efficiently utilized for anything since.

If the lock-in wasn't a requirement, there's no reason why things didn't stay double-DIN and have standardized connectors that allowed any "with climate control" stereo to fit in the dash and have additional inlets for steering wheel buttons and backup camera displays. the lack of these things indicate that, even if it wasn't an intended change to make everything proprietary, it was an outcome that seemed to have happened to basically everybody at basically the same time.

It's not the cassette deck that people are looking to use in their car. Remember - cars typically have about a ten year useful life. Ten years ago, there was no iPhone, and if you had a SatNav in your car, it required a $500 map DVD. Not too long ago, there were a handful of radios that supported Napster To Go, a service that was ahead of its time...but is utterly useless now.

The ability to change out entertainment systems when the technology changes is incredibly helpful, and even if I give a massive amount of faith to the auto industry, they went from non-proprietary to proprietary, for reasons that do not benefit me.

Re:Right to repair?

[SuricouRaven]

Then why not just disable fingerprint recognition and require the user set that up again from scratch, rather than disable the entire phone?

Re:just wait for cars to be this way! dealer only

[macs4all]

Honestly, I actually believe that the integration of "infotainment" systems has more to do with resource-sharing cost and space savings than proprietary lock-in.

Then why did they feel the need to encrypt the communication between the body ECU and the engine ECU, if not to lock out aftermarket programmers?

And when States make Laws that prevent the removal of all of the computer controlled stuff, they are effectively supporting this proprietary lock-in.

Well, encryption of internal busses MIGHT, just MIGHT be an anti-hacking measure.

The States made engine-controller anti-circumvention laws for EMISSION CONTROL purposes. So blame the EPA.

Look, I have a double-layer tinfoil hat at the ready at all times myself; but sometimes, it really ISN'T a Conspiracy. And this is one of those times.

Re:Missing something.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that pentalobe isn't designed for torquing down to anything. It's as delicate as the flower the driver pocket looks like, it's weaker than phillips and torx. The pentalobe is used because nothing you can buy other than pentalobe can unscrew them. Besides, if that screw shaves a second of time, they have alot more assembly problems than the wrong choice of screw. I have a background in tooling design and manufacturing, and the screw is bs. It's expensive to make, requires special tooling to use, and is weaker than other designs. It is an objectively worse design, the only thing that it excels at is keeping people from turning it.

Re:Missing something.

[macs4all]

And yet, lots of people sell Pentalobe Screwdrivers (including iFixit, who whined about them), and yet Apple has not taken a single one of them to court for Patent Infringement.

Why should you have to break the law to fix your phone?

Pentalobe is super easy to strip. In the hundreds of macbook pros I've serviced, I've run across less than a hanful of genuinely stripped phillips screws. Stripped pentalobes are pretty common, and even opening them the first time damages the socket of the screw.

Pentalobe may be super easy to strip, if you try and remove it without a Pentalobe driver. That obviously doesn't count.

If you've only come across a "hanful" [sic] of stripped #00 Phillips, consider yourself lucky.

And who's breaking the law?

Re:Right to repair?

[brantondaveperson]

Because if the fingerprint sensor is replaced with a malicious one at some repair shop somewhere, and the user sets the system up again in good faith, the phone is now back-doored, and can be broken by associates of the people that built the malicious sensor. It's about how much security you want - Apple believe that you want as close to 100% bulletproof security as can be provided with today's technology. This type of issue is one of the prices that you must pay as a consumer to enjoy that security, and if that price is too high, many other devices are available with much reduced levels of security. They're normally alot cheaper too.

THIS is why the USA is turning to shit.

[ToddInSF]

And look, no votes at all, NY corruption at it's finest.

Re:Right to repair?

[brantondaveperson]

and security cannot be compromised by replacing the sensor.

Except by replacing the fingerprint sensor with a malicious one.