Hacker News Reader

Comment by spicybright | Hacker News Reader

Absolutely when it comes to tech. It's fairly inconsequential sideloading something to your phone.

Medical devices I think should need a someone well versed to work on it.

With cars, the current model most states in the US have is a good middle ground. You can do whatever you want to your car, but it needs to pass a safety inspection every 2 years to drive it legally.

The inspections in my state are fairly comprehensive. Airbags, seat belts, headlight brightness, and structural stability of the frame to name a few.

It also helps the US has a strong car culture with tons of experienced DIY-ers, which I imagine helps.

View on HN

I think we should just have some pretty clear literature that if you modify a device, the manufacturer is not responsible for any injuries it might cause you.

Modify a dishwasher and now it fills your kitchen with soap bubbles? Modify a CPAP machine and get killed by it? Not the manufacturer's fault.

The US is too litigation happy as it is...

IANAL or even a law-enthusiast, but surely we already have case law on this if nothing else? You can't sue the car company if you remove the breaks in your car... right?

I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm fairly sure that "we didn't cause the harm" is a good defense to a claim that they caused harm.

By passing a right to repair on medical devices you also open up the aftermarket for repairs. Would you like to be handed a medical device by your insurance company that has been repaired by an untrained person that considers himself to be a handyman? Or be put in a scanner that was repaired by a service engineer from a broker that is cutting corners to win in the competing market.

Without clear quality and regulatory control there must be an objective method to discern between personal repairs and non-personal ones.

Disclaimer: didn't read the actual right to repair being passed in detail. Not sure if it does discern already.

But if the insurance company doesn't want to be liable for it it would require a certified and/or bonded tech. In the US cars don't even require this to be stringent. You don't need any schooling to become ASC Certified mechanic, just take a test, no limiting factors for how often you need to recertify, or if you fail it so many times you need to school/train. At least in Canada you need to go to school, and then be a journeyman for a number of years before you can actually be a mechanic.

To really fix it we need a non-profit group to be in charge of the certification, preferably one who can be held accountable for failure due to their certification. My removing the incentive for profit we make it so the Medical industry won't try to control it, the insurance industry to mitigate their requirements, and government from trying to have political agendas pushed.

I have more that I would love to put in here but my employer has opinions that might differ from mine, and can be directly involved with some things that the law can impact.

> In the US cars don't even require this to be stringent. You don't need any schooling to become ASC Certified mechanic, just take a test, no limiting factors for how often you need to recertify, or if you fail it so many times you need to school/train.

There's no legal requirement in the US federally, or in any state I'm aware of, to have any certifications for general automotive repair. The EPA does require it for working on air conditioning systems, though. [0] However, many employers do require certification and/or will assist in getting the certifications. Some of the smaller shops are more likely to have mechanics without certifications or with expired certifications (I believe ASE certs are five years). ASE does require hands on experience for their certifications in addition to the test, though. [1]

The BLS also describes this, probably better than I do. [2]

[0] https://www.epa.gov/mvac/section-609-technician-training-and...

[1] https://www.ase.com/work-experience

[2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/installation-maintenance-and-repair/...

> I think we should just have some pretty clear literature that if you modify a device, the manufacturer is not responsible for any injuries it might cause you.

That's not nearly nuanced enough. Manufacturers should still be responsible unless they can prove you caused the failure. We currently require this standard for something as simple warranty coverage, we ought to require it for something as severe as death.

For reference, see “It’s clear you caused water damage because the water damage sticker changed colour. Warranty claim denied” from not too long ago. Spoiler: It was regular moisture from being in the pants pocket during a warm day.

> With cars, the current model most states in the US have is a good middle ground. You can do whatever you want to your car, but it needs to pass a safety inspection every 2 years to drive it legally.

Only 4 US states have biannual safety inspections. Another 11 have annual inspections. The other 35 states + DC do not have safety inspections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_Unit...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com