Hacker News Reader

Comment by dawidpotocki | Hacker News Reader

> Later that year, though, the right-to-repair movement scored some big wins. […] The very next day, New York’s legislature passed the bill that would later become the nation’s first electronics right-to-repair law.

It's hard to call it a "win". It has been sabotaged by the governor Kathy Hochul at the last minute, a year after it passed with supermajority. She was waiting a whole year to sign the bill and at the end decided add loopholes which made the bill worse than useless. People now think that the problem is solved when in reality nothing has been done.

View on HN

Lobbyists butchered this legislation. Many of the suggested edits[1] by lobbyists to weaken the original - made it into the bill verbatim [2]. How do New Yorkers feel about unelected parties writing their laws?

[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23599780-technets-pr... [2] https://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S01320&ter...

Most lawmakers are lawyers. Meaning most of the time when they are writing laws in things, they are not th experts on such things. That the purpose of public comment periods, Publix hearings, and lobbyists being able to help craft laws.

Now, this seems to be a failure where there were not protests raised to this amendments or the lawmakers ignored such things. Either way, the point of lobbyists is to allow industry experts to provide input. If there is nothing wrong with their suggestions, I don't see a problem with verbatim including of their wording.

(I disagree with how the NY law was changed, but there are reasons lobbying exists).

How would you approach thinking about this in a way which makes the lawyers culpable rather than an acceptable part of the status quo?

Are you really asking someone how they would rephrase their statement so it expresses a different point of view?

Traditionally in an debate, it is your responsibility to convince the other side of your view. You can't just get the other side to make your argument for you.

I'm assuming that this wasn't a debate but a matter of open minded thinking.

> the point of lobbyists

??? There is no "point" to lobbyists, its literally a guy paying to play. Take any industry expert from any industry and unless they themselves are a lobbyist I can near guarantee they would be happier if lobbying was illegal with very harsh punishment

"if lobbying was illegal with very harsh punishment"

I suppose you mean professional lobbying, with the purpose of influencing laws to make money?

Because when a environmental group tries to block some dirty mining project for example, than this is also lobbying. It is just people using influence. You cannot really make that illegal.

You can force the parties involved for transparency and punish bribery, but you cannot make it illegal for people to talk to politicians.

Even when it is done "professional". The problem in reality is, that when you look closely, in effect lots of lobbying is indeed bribery. (most of the indirect kind, like informal promising lucrative jobs after their terms are over, or giving overpaid talks). And that is and remains illegal.

So far, I have never before seen an environment group trying to block a mining project referred to as "lobbying". Is the term really that generally used in practice?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

“Lobbying, which usually involves direct, face-to-face contact in cooperation with support staff that may not meet directly face-to-face, is done by many types of people, associations and organized groups, including individuals on a personal level in their capacity as private citizens, it is also practiced by corporations in the private sector serving their own interests, by non-profits and non-governmental organizations in the voluntary sector, by fellow legislators or government officials influencing each other through legislative affairs (legislative assistance) in the public sector, and by advocacy groups (interest groups).”

Selectively forgot this part:

> is the act of lawfully

Just because something is lawful doesn't make it good or desirable. I'm sure you can think of many historical examples of lawful actions that are now considered a crime. The opposite is also true.

Many laws are a product of the time they were written and in turn, a product of the people who have written them. Why is lobbying legal in the USA? Why is it coded in law? These are genuine questions that people can and should ask.

It’s a very important distinction, if lobbying is not lawful lobbyists are crooks. If it is lawful it’s just a practice that does not agree with your personal preference.

The idea that lobbyists are ‘the man’ corruptly influencing bent politicians is tiresome and to paint it as the truth is not productive. If you want to stop lobbying vote for politicians that want to stop it or run for office yourself. However once you are in office you might note why it exists, as did many before you.

But if the lobbying laws have been passed by the people who were previously unlawfully doing lobbying then what kind of validaty do they have to begin with?

I mean to me the big issue is that these are laws that corrupt democracy (in the sense that they benefit the few powerful over the many powerless). And your solution of "just vote them out" is not really feasible because both democrats and Republicans (the only two realistic options you have given the electoral system) are pro lobbying!

But is the general population in favour of lobbying? I don't know but I don't think so.

I personally advocate for a new way of doing politics altogether. As I don't think the current system really works well to properly channel the will of the majority of the people in responsible ways.

And lobbying is much, much stricter in pretty much every other country in the world. So the US is an outlier here.

It’s not possible to ‘unlawfully do lobbying’ if by definition lobbying is ‘the act of lawfully …’. You are describing the second option, it’s just a practice that does not agree with your personal preference.

You appear to have strong ideas about politics. Arguing on forums gets them nowhere, you can either preach to the choir or try to convince people who will never change their mind. If you want to change things, get involved in the political process yourself.

Media focuses on the corrupt side of lobbying because it sells rage clicks.

The fact is without the non-corrupt side of lobbying, the lawyers whom make up most of the legislature wouldn't have the first clue how their legislation interacts with complex industry specific real world systems.

Lobbying in exchange for any kind of favor (money, influence, etc.) should be illegal. Why would you want to focus on the almost inconsequential lobbying "for free" regular people can do, instead of the society-changing lobbying "for money" that is accessible only to the advantage of a few?

Lobbying for money is a form of legalized corruption, almost identical in form and function to the illegal one, except designed to protect those who already have a lot of money and power from any legal consequences.

Hiring someone to lobby on my behalf is an important part of our political process. If there’s an issue I care about, my ability to show up at a random time in DC to lobby “for free” should not be my only recourse.

If I donate money to the EFF or Louis Rossmann for a cause I care about, that should not block them from lobbying on my behalf.

Everyone complains about professional lobbying that they don’t like. That’s hardly shocking.

People complain because it links your net worth to how much you are represented which is anti-democratic.

> Everyone complains about professional lobbying that they don’t like.

I think you picked the laziest understanding of both the issue and my answer, and made my point in the process.

I'm not talking about you paying someone to represent your ideas to lawmakers, regulators, judges, etc. but about paying those people to directly enact your interests. They're both big problems in their own way. Straight up buying laws or legal decisions happens even if the incentives move from the interest groups to the decision factors through so many lobbying laundromats that they look completely clean and disconnected.

The other problem is not better. As you confirm, real representation in democracy is not with your vote but your donation power. Even when your chosen lobbyist isn't buying anything directly, just having a voice and representation takes money rather than a vote. The EFF or Louis Rossmann have to struggle so much to be heard because other people pay more to be louder. If you have problems being heard for money, imagine the people hoping to be heard for free.

The large majority of people can only spend one vote every few years to choose a representation that a small minority will spend a lot of money to hijack: either drown out everyone else's voice, or directly purchase exactly what they want. If you can't see why "everyone complains" maybe you're too disconnected from the problem to even understand it.

This is simply bullshit.

Congress can simply bring people to testify in the open instead of cowering in the shadows like they do now.

Reading about the topic of lobbying about every day for work. The more common term to see is "advocacy" but i would not raise an eyebrow if I saw the saw the verb lobby used to describe an environment organization's activities.

>Because when a environmental group tries to block some dirty mining project

Which is also usually driven by financial interests under cover of virtue. It is most obvious in Europe where many people now have become multi millionaires, largely of government imposed enrichment schemes.

"where many people now have become multi millionaires, largely of government imposed enrichment schemes."

Can you cite concrete examples?

I would imagine lobbying to enact a higher barrier to entry through regulation to reduce potential entrants to an existing market.

When you write a letter to your congressman ... lobbying.

Politics is just filthy business. I know I’m being short changed and should pay attention, but it is unsustainable with the more I know.

This is probably how corruption takes over a society. Something I thought I’d only ever read in history books, but now I have the privilege of living through it. Oh joy.

You know how we have this image that eastern countries are corrupt? Once you recognize the blatant corruption that is “lobbying” America doesn’t look so pure.

Chinese state officials don't have to look far when they want to point out the hypocrisy of the charges the US levies against their country. I've seen them take easy shots on Twitter just like the left vs right partisanship, "haha your side is hypocritical!" "Well so is yours!" and on and on...

I wish we had a better example to show to the world.

This is like saying any engineer would like it to be illegal to have people paid to write documentation. There's an art to communication, especially in niche area like getting the ear of the right legislators and translating a topic in terms they will understand. Louis Rossman hired lobbyists to get right to repair legislation passed. If hiring a lobbyist is illegal it wouldn't prevent lobbying, it will keep occuring just in wink wink nudge nudge smoke filled back room quid pro quo sort of channels and less accessibly.

Nah, It's just corruption smoke and mirrors, it's just wealth transfer in exchange for kickbacks but adding a middleman some how makes it legal.

Like SuperPAC's and all that bullshit

Yes, but making it illegal would mean well meaning groups also can't bend the ear of politicians when they need to. The heavily moneyed interests don't really need professional lobbyists so much when they can offer high six figure consulting salaries to politicians once they leave office, have former company people in govt positions, can communicate through campaign funding etc. Bigger broader problem. Meanwhile a right to repair advocate very much could benefit from hiring a guy that knows the office hours of the legislator and who the best staffers would be to float an idea with.

So what you are saying is that we should allow people with bad intentions the ability to influence politicians monetarily (literally bribery), so the few morsels of good money that can buy any influence may have a chance to also be considered for inclusion?

Edit: I see your point wrt alternative bribery schemes existing, and isn't the solution perhaps for those schemes to also be shut down, instead of allowing it because some good might come of it?

Hmmmm, it's difficult not to assume you are yourself a lobbyist or politician if you take this position, given that the coffers of those with ill intent are vastly more lined than the alternative...

Thanks for putting words on what was rubbing me wrong.

We need something better than this fake democracy we inherited.

> Hmmmm, it's difficult not to assume you are yourself a lobbyist or politician

Well, it probably is difficult if one is not very good at thinking.

Regarding your edit, sure, but that's not the content of the post I replied to. That was about banning lobbying and I'm making the point that consequences of that could be counterproductive and make for an even less level playing field.

Nothing in the government should benefit those with more money.

That's a nice soundbyte. How are you doing to get us there though without worse unintended consequences than the status quo?

By banning lobbying and political donations

It should be do it the reverse way: we should vote for lobbyists and have the lawmaker paid to write the law for us.

Voting lawmaker who don’t know the subject don’t help

It would be far more effective to strike the incentive for lobbying by eliminating the coercion inherent to the system.

Run for office. Seriously. Also I'll point out no lawmaker is going to be very well versed in every subject on which legislation is necessary.

Lobbyists lobby for causes, for money, that is their point.

If you run a small solar company, it is in your best interest to support SEIA, the member association (lobbyist) for the solar industry.

You might think the system is dumb, and it is, but if you don’t understand why it exists, you can’t design a replacement.

Lawmakers and their teams legislate on topics that they are far from experts in, so they regularly need to consult with experts. Those experts, no matter how you select them, will harbor biases.

How do you get the relevant expertise to the lawmakers? I’ve talked to a chief of staff for a senator and at that level it is a lot of responding to what is next on the agenda, and less deciding.

"Redress of Grievances" to the government is specifically why the First Amendment was written giving us Freedom of Speech. I don't really care if someone is "happy" about it or not.

The point of lobbyists is to have someone talk to the elected representatives to let them know what their job is. It would be kind of silly to go to all of the trouble of electing a representative and then never talk to them again. They most certainly are not mind readers.

Same reason you talk to your representative on the regular so that your position is known. It's why you hired someone to represent you, after all. As before, the person you hired is not a mind reader. You have to talk to him. Like any employer, if you don't keep in regular touch with your employees they are not going to do the job you expect of them.

> Most lawmakers are lawyers.

Whatever they are they should be representing the people first. If that involves learning more about whatever they're in charge of, then they should do that, since that's what we pay them to do. Plato said our kings should be philosophers, but what we have are sophists.

Likewise programmers are not experts on the things they write programs for so it is acceptable for them to just do the bare minimum of translating business requirements into code and see what bugs pop up.

Right?

Programmers usually have documented acceptance criteria to meet, and those criteria are usually not up to them.

Poor analogy.

Most people don’t care and definitely don’t pay nearly as close attention as should be required to have the right to vote, let alone those who are payed massive amounts of money to manipulate corrupted politicians. Corruption is now or at the very least is well on its way to becoming systemic.

I wish HN would add a new reply button, "It's hopeless and people don't care and its only going to get worse" because it would save a great deal of time for everyone involved.

Maybe instead of reply people should just submit and comply?

Well the ubiquity of it doesn't make it any less true.

It's never been less true. Humans have never been more capable of coherent action, and this fact has not been lost on the sociopathic no-upper-limit-to-greed manipulator types who've done well in this nascient internet with its aging, nostalgic noobs. The modern zeitgeist is dominated by the heat from a thousand battles happening in the info-sphere, fought by PR mercenaries and state-sponsored labs duking it out. They must win their battle because that is what they are paid to do, and saying the word "externality" is a good way to get fired.

But. If we can act coherently on one way, we can do so in another, and I take great hope in that fact.

This sounds like a great intro to a book. I'm hooked.

I mean, the top 1% richest is somehow able to pocket nearly twice as much wealth as the other 99% of population of the world.

Money is power, at least until people are fairly represented...

So I'm not so optimistic.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly...

Wow, so negative. All NYers need to do is peacefully protest with some really original and funny signs/chants and they’ll solve the corruption.

> Corruption is now or at the very least is well on its way to becoming systemic.

It's now clear we have a critical vulnerability in our political operating system. IMHO, the simplest solution is single-term limits. Obviously, there are upside and downside trade-offs to such a policy. However, I think the upsides might be worth the downsides, especially since the system is so clearly being gamed by well-funded adversaries to the public interest.

Based on the sky-rocketing increases in net worth after becoming a long-term career politician, the incentives are simply overwhelming. It's now attracting people with poor, or at least conflicted, motivations to the career. Another under-appreciated upside would be limiting the influence of entrenched, 'permanent' political parties, as seen in the now-eternal two-party duopoly we have in the U.S. No matter which 'side' you may be on (if any), we'd all be better served by a system more able to evolve and adapt to meet changing conditions.

In New Hampshire, state reps and senators are paid only $200 per two-year term.[0] There are also more reps (total, not per capita) than in any other state. Reps end up representing <4,000 people on average--a number someone can actually represent.

And they have to consider every proposal.

You know what the most common decision is? "ITL," or "inexpedient to legislate." In most cases, no, there really shouldn't be a law.

Is it the best system out there? Probably not, but it certainly solves some of the commonest problems.

[0] https://www.vnews.com/Upper-Valley-state-legislators-push-fo...

Requiring politicians to be (essentially) volunteers does NOT insulate the system from corruption. It also seems likely to guarantee well-off people will become members, but perhaps that's not a change from what you see elsewhere in the country.

Well which is it? Does paying them corrupt them or does not paying them corrupt them?

They should be paid a fair salary by the government for doing the work. They should not be being paid by anyone else.

>IMHO, the simplest solution is single-term limits. Obviously, there are upside and downside trade-offs to such a policy. However, I think the upsides might be worth the downsides, especially since the system is so clearly being gamed by well-funded adversaries to the public interest.

Do you think the government is less complicated than the average software project? Does the idea of firing all mid-level and senior developers strike you as good practice?

Although I don't think the person you're replying to is in the right. There are three branches of government, legislative, executive and judicial and replacing the legislators is probably the easiest out of all and the one that's going to bring the most benefit as well. I think your example is more akin to replacing people in the executive and people who generally "work the ropes" in government.

Systemic corruption is very much a thing, but I think it's mostly concentrated in the legislative branch of government, than the executive or the judicial. I personally think it's easier to add to a system than remove from it, and maybe we ought to rethink the bicameral system for one that is more capable of representing the interests of the general population.

Now, the real problem is that any changes to the system need to come from the system itself :) so there's obvious interests at play that might not be touched.

> IMHO, the simplest solution is single-term limits.

What makes you think that every politician being exposed to the public spotlight for a very limited period is even a solution, rather than an accelerant, to the problem of political corruption?

The people in power are the ones to vote on enabling that, but they will never vote against their own power. We already have the power to do this collectively and that is to vote out the incumbent every election as a default.

should be required? voting should not require any test to exercise said right, as is expected in a normal democratic society

>How do New Yorkers feel about unelected parties writing their laws?

Oh no, not the gdpr again?

I'm quite sure lobbying played a role with these changes, but the first source is not official.

> How do New Yorkers feel about unelected parties writing their laws?

I'm all for right to repair laws, but I would hate to see a law concerning even slightly technical topics written only by elected parties. It would be a disaster.

The legislators approved the editing of the laws and voted for the text as written. They are responsible and should be held accountable.

Laws written by lobbyists are an even worse disaster.

The legislators' job is to represent their constituents, not those who pay enough to tell them what to legislate.

Elected officials who don't at least appear to represent their constituents do not remain elected for long.

> I'm all for right to repair laws, but I would hate to see a law concerning even slightly technical topics written only by elected parties. It would be a disaster.

Specific to the US.

They're rarely if ever written by elected officials directly. Rather legislative aids do the bulk of the authoring and reading of bills along with input from lobbyists.

Laws may be problematic due to the unfamiliarity the authors/sponsors have with technical details and nuances but overwhelmingly the difficulty lies in creating legislature that cannot be interpreted in any other way than it's intention when challenged by an army of highly paid and highly skilled attorneys.

> They are responsible and should be held accountable.

No, an elected official cannot be punished for voting.

Of course they can. They can be voted out of office at the next election.

Sorry - how can lobbyists do this? Are they part of the writing process?

Hey, why so negative! Lobbying is a hard work requiring coordination, expensive lawyers and tons of money. It's the only layer of protection for the society from a thoughtless legislation!

> She was waiting a whole year to sign the bill and at the end decided add loopholes which made the bill worse than useless.

Pardon my ignorance on this, I'm not American, but how can the governer do this? How can the governer change the laws the legislature made? Or does it mean it was sent back to the legislature and they were forced to make changes as the governer was not signing? But it passed with super majority, the governor cannot fight a supermajority, right?

Well, one way is the line item veto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_S....

In this case, I believe subtle changes were made to this bill just before the NYS legislature was going to be on recess and it passed and signed into law.

But the bill had a supermajority, how can the governor veto it at all? Is there no way for the legislature to force the governor to sign the bill? What if 100% of the legislature voted yes on something, can the governor still block it?

Because the ability to veto is a separate step in the workflow, not a precondition of how the vote to pass breaks down. If the hypothetical 100% of the legislature voted yes, the governor could still say no, and then it is upon the legislature to formally override with another vote.

That would explain why the bill not-yet-amended to the governor's preferences could not become law without another vote.

But it doesn't explain how the amended-to-the-governor's-preferences version became law.

So the legislature amended it, not the governor. Why is the governor getting the blame then? The governor could say whatever they want, the legislature could have just sent it back as is with the override of the veto. It is mind boggling that the legislature changed anything in a bill with a super majority.

iirc The governor can request changes on which the legislature will then vote on, which is what happened.

Yeah this aspect of the story never made sense to me.

Wouldn't the legislature have had to vote on the 'subtly changed' bill again for it to become law?

If they don't need to, yet it still somehow can become law in amended form, isn't it bypassing the powers of the legislature?

How does a governor unilaterally add loopholes to a bill?

Isn’t that the role of the legislative branch?

It is, but the governor can basically hold the bill hostage by refusing to sign unless specific amendments are made, which is what happened here.

In NY if the governor doesn't sign it becomes law by default.

https://www.nysenate.gov/how-bill-becomes-law-1

>While the Legislature is in session, the Governor has 10 days (not counting Sundays) to sign or veto bills passed by both houses. Signed bills become law; vetoed bills do not. However, the Governor's failure to sign or veto a bill within the 10-day period means that it becomes law automatically.

> She was waiting a whole year to sign the bill and at the end decided add loopholes which made the bill worse than useless.

So what’s with this 10 day timeframe? I’m confused. So, technically, they haven’t been waiting a year and vetoed the bill right away?

most likely there was some shenanigans within the legislature to hide exactly who did what, which shouldn't be possible given freedom of information rules, but if it was vetoed that would leave a record that doesn't exist. Most likely it was never officially submitted until after changes occurred.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlHtbaRWAAEdwdv?format=jpg&name=...

> "The legislation as drafted included technical issues that could put safety and security at risk, as well as heighten the risk of injury from physical repair projects, and I am pleased to have reached an agreement with the legislature to address these issues."

The whole bill was altered by the legislature and governor such that assemblies satisfy the requirement to have parts available. So if Samsung glues the battery to the screen and sells it to you as a $300 part, that satisfies the requirement of having the battery available. So the whole bill was sabotaged and used a press release by the government to pretend they were doing something for the people when in fact they were neutering the bill.

I had an iPhone repaired under warranty; it was the logic board but the Apple Store dude was proud to let me know that the display and camera would move over, but everything else was part of the logic board (including the battery). I guess a phone with three parts is better than one with one part.

What model was it ? Does Apple solder their iPhones batteries now ?

it was an iPhone 13; I don't know if the battery is "really" connected or it's just how they do the repair; he just mentioned that the back cover and battery would be part of the logic board replacement.

(I still am not quite certain why they didn't just give me a refurbished phone and later repair mine as a refurb, but whatever)

No, and in the newest iPhone, 14, it was made easier to replace the battery:

https://www.ifixit.com/News/64865/iphone-14-teardown

I think X to 13 models had particularly difficult battery replacements.

Great video from Louis Rossmann on this situation: https://youtu.be/7xGBB-717AI

> She was waiting a whole year to sign the bill and at the end decided add loopholes which made the bill worse than useless.

The changes made it so it would not cover agricultural equipment and big appliances like washing machines and refrigerators.

It still covers electronic devices purchased at retail after it goes into effect (2023-07-1) such as computers, phones, and tablets.

Hew is that "worse than useless"?

https://thehustle.co/02162023-john-deere/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9205919/Fridges-was...

It's difficult to imagine someone could be so unaware of the battles waged around them.

Ok, forget about the bill. We should have a right to repair our democracy!

I don't understand how a governor can single handedly add loopholes to a bill that has supermajority.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com