Hacker News Reader

Comment by crowf | Hacker News Reader

I fear that that will be "Californiaed" like with the prop 65 label. The intention was to inform the consumer if a product was dangerous, but due to California being California, that label is on basically every product and that label has now lost its meaning.

View on HN

The equivalent for the california labels of "this might give you cancer" would be something like "you might be able to replace the battery"

At least I would hope the french scores / standards would be objective enough to be useful.

if california had a "cancer scale" or something it would be more useful than it is today. Maybe that lead paint is "grade a cancer" but your bed sheets are only a "grade d cancer" i dunno.

I think a repairability label is less likely to get bucketed into yes or no. A score might be manipulated or skewed.

That said, something like a nutrition or privacy label might be a better fit. For example, if something has a battery, can it be replaced by the user or even replaced at all.

The key to prevent that is to make it something like the IoT label [1] that has been proposed for several years

That was more around security of the devices, but I would like to see a label that covered 4 parameters

1. Security

2. Repariblity

3. Openness / Cloud Dependency / etc

4. Privacy

[1]https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/news/2020/05/27-iot-labels-consume...

It seems much easier to demonstrate repariability over "we are 100% sure that nothing in this product causes cancer or increases its risk".

I view this as more similar to energystar in the us, where I can see efficiency of appliances. Or mandatory fuel economy labeling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com