Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday May 01 2019, @07:48AM   Printer-friendly
from the obey,-consume,-marry-and-do-not-repair dept.

Last year dozens of 'Right to Repair' bills were introduced throughout the US, but defeated. Maybe this time its time has come.

Right to Repair bills, designed to foster competition in the repair industry, require manufacturers to allow repair, and even provide manuals, diagnosic software, and parts. Manufacturers oppose these laws as it can cost them more to address devices repaired by third parties, because repairs are a source of revenue, and because repaired items are less likely to be replaced with new ones.

[O]ne of the most effective anti-repair tactics is to spread FUD about the supposed security risks of independent repairs.

Without a concerted and coordinated effort to counteract this tactic, legislators receive primarily well-heeled opposing views, and vote accordingly.

Last year, a newly formed lobbying group called the Security Innovation Center began placing op-eds in local newspapers like the Minnesota St. Cloud Times and the Illinois State Journal-Register advocating against right-to-repair bills in those states. The articles often argued, without much evidence, that the proposed laws would allow hackers to steal people's personal information and sow chaos.

Now, Right to Repair is again gaining traction with more than a dozen states, including California, considering bills, and even one presidential candidate calling for a national Right to Repair law. This time Right to Repair has its own lobbying organization to speak before legislatures considering these laws.

Enter Securerepairs.org, a new nonprofit founded by Paul Roberts, whose experts (including "Harvard University's Bruce Schneier, bug bounty expert Katie Moussouris, and ACLU technologist Jon Callas") will attend Right to Repair hearings to counter this industry [FUD] and explain how "Fixable stuff is secure stuff."

Roberts and his organization are up against an industry with deep pockets, and it's hard to know how well they will succeed in persuading lawmakers to enact right-to-repair initiatives. So far, only one repair law, targeting the auto industry, has passed in the US, in Roberts' home state of Massachusetts in 2012. But the bill had an outsize impact: After it was put in place, major car manufacturers agreed to share repair information with independent mechanics across the entire country.

The hope now is that Securepairs.org could help bring similar legislation to other places, starting with California. It's an enormous state and the home of many of America's largest technology companies. This is the second time California has tried introducing a right-to-repair bill; a previous effort failed last year. A representative from the Security Innovation Center is set to testify at the hearing, but so are experts who believe the right to repair won't pose any security risks to be worried about.

Related Stories
Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost
Jailbreak your Tractor or Make it Run OSS?
Right to Repair
Apple, Verizon Join Forces to Lobby Against New York's 'Right to Repair' Law
Washington State Bill Would Make Hard-to-Repair Electronics Illegal
Tractor Hacking: The Farmers Breaking Big Tech's Repair Monopoly
The Right to Repair Battle Has Come to California
John Deere Just Swindled Farmers Out of Their Right to Repair
45 Out of 50 Electronics Companies Illegally Void Warranties After Independent Repair, Sting Reveals
Yes, Americans, You Can Break Anti-Piracy DRM If You Want to Repair Some of Your Kit – US Govt
Apple's T2 Security Chip Can Prevent Unauthorized Third-Party Repair of Devices
Right to Repair Legislation Is Officially Being Considered In Canada


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 02 2019, @01:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 02 2019, @01:16AM (#837625)

    Some time ago a friend asked me to try with repairing a programmer for a machine of quite significant size. The idea was to make everything controlled under the full automation system (more expensive) or resurrect the existing one, built in 1980s and operated since then (if less expensive). Generally OK, but the surprise was on the mainboard.
    So a whole machine's driving was ran by 6 ULA chips. Types unknown, and one pin of one chip burnt.
    Generally ULA were before FPGA and they were factory-programmed. Additionally they were quite fragile electrically. Manufacturer shut down in 1990s and the manual (I expected a nice description, this is not a pair of shoes, this is an expensive manufacturing stuff) stated to "replace ULA board". Contacting a factory using similar machine, it was possible to obtain a "Technical reference manual", which was a 280-page book with a few dozens of centrefolds. The situation in which they got this manual was interesting, the manual was left by accident by a serviceman and they just quickly photocopied it.
    Fortunately this internal documentation was well enough to see that the missing signal is in fact dependent on 4 other in quite simple manner (AND, NAND and a flipflop). A breadboard with 74 chips in, and test run. In the docs, there were just details of rules implemented in machine. Great, seems to work...
    Hey stop the thing! This conveyor goes all time with small breaks, it shouldn't!
    oops, let's invert the result...
    OK, now it works. It looks like the AC driver takes the inverted signal.
    The modules are really totally OK if they are like I/O modules for industrial systems, Logika blocks, TTL 74 or 40 chips, generally standardized enough to be understood and replaced without blind faith like this ULA module.