Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kon-Peki | Hacker News Reader

That's what I'm saying. It looks like you can repair your device. But you can't repair devices for anyone else without a mountain of certifications.

They're going to kill the independent repair industry.

View on HN

> They're going to kill the independent repair industry.

This bill does not kill anything that is not already dead.

This. The parts and information in question are already hard to get and aren’t being sold to authorized repair providers.

It places the minimum bar at known place, and that known place is anti-consumer. So now all companies know that they don't have to any more than have a certified repair center program.

What's that you sa? The requirements on certification are impossibly high. Oh noes.

There is presently no bar whatsoever.

Any bar at all is an improvement over what presently exists, wherein: There is a vacuous void.

It's one thing to fix things for yourself, and a whole other kind of thing to hold yourself out to the public as an expert in something. Kind of like how you can defend yourself in court but not someone else unless you are a lawyer. Though I would be surprised if the law were written such that you couldn't repair someone else's device, so long as you did not receive compensation for it.

So as a non-certified repairer, you have to offer a city tour around the block, at a ridiculously high price, and then repair the device at no additional cost. All a matter of perspective.

The problem is that it sounds like the device manufacturer gets to decide what certifications are sufficient. Presumably they could decide that no certifications are sufficient, and thus no one can run a certified repair shop.

Or they could offer their own certification, but make attaining it prohibitively expensive or difficult.

> without a mountain of certifications.

It's not a mountain of certificates, you just need one of many different options.

They explicitly mention A+ which I assume is the CompTIA one.[0] Yeah, I'm not going to say it doesn't suck to have to pay $250, but there are free practice exams[1]. Here, I even took a screenshot of their sample questions[2] there are things like

  Which of the following password choices increases the chance that a brute force attack will succeed?

  A. Dictionary words
  B. Special characters
  C. Long passwords
  D. Capital letters

I'm okay verifying that someone has this basic level of competence. I would be surprised if any given Hacker News user couldn't pass one of these tests without studying. You need like a 78%...

But let's be real, if you're repairing for a friend, you just fucking order the stuff for them and put in their name and info (with their permission of course). The only "for anyone else" part that requires certs is if you're operating a business. I think you all are blowing this part out of proportion. Mountains out of mole hills. I know it is the internet and we like to complain without knowing what we're complaining about, but come on...

[0] https://www.comptia.org/certifications/a

[1] https://www.comptia.org/training/resources/practice-tests

[2] https://imgur.com/a/X1ajlAy

If the previous comments are to be believed (I don't know I didn't read the law), then individual repairperson will need many certs in practice. If I put myself out there as able to repair phones and there are a dozen popular phone manufacturers and each requires a different cert then I need to make them all happy to be able accept whatever customers walk in the front door with.

> If the previous comments are to be believed (I don't know I didn't read the law)

It's probably worth doing so before taking a stance. I'd highly encourage this if you see people arguing about something in the comments. Especially when it is linked. Here, I'll save you the trouble

  (e) “Independent repair provider” means a person that:
    (A) Engages in the business of diagnosing, maintaining, repairing or updating consumer electronic equipment in this state but is not an authorized service provider; and
    (B) Possesses a valid and unexpired certification that demonstrates that the person has the technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment in accordance with widely accepted standards, such as a Wireless Industry Service Excellence Certification, an A+ certification from the Computing Technology Industry Association, a National Appliance Service Technician Certification or another certification that an original equipment manufacturer accepts as evidence that the person can perform safe, secure and reliable repairs to consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells.

We can see that it literally says what I indicated.

>> It's not a mountain of certificates, you just need one of many different options.

  Possesses __A__ valid and unexpired certification that demonstrates that the person has the technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely

Nowhere does it say that many are needed and the continued text makes a stronger indication that these are examples of such sufficient certifications rather than the specific ones needed. If you're willing to believe the other comments maybe you're willing to believe I googled the requirements and can find no such clear description in Oregon Law that one must have a mountain of certificates. All I can find is that you must be certified (with similar but not identical examples provided) and a specific requirement about the certification including discussion of pollution. Which those practice exams I showed even have such a question. But also IANAL, but neither are most of the commenters. Still, I did read the text before responding and tried to do due diligence before taking a position. I hope we can reduce the number of arguments by RTFMing.

I understand your argument. It is a good one. But there's a level of ridiculousness to the text that should give you pause.

The National Appliance Service Technician Certification shows that the holder knows how to repair ovens, refrigerators, and other major household appliances. Your interpretation of the text says that the Oregon legislature believes that this qualifies someone to repair anything covered by their wide-ranging right to repair law. That can't be right, can it?

No, a more logical interpretation is that the list of certifications is just a set of examples, but that manufacturers will have to decide what is applicable to whatever it is they manufacture.

Sure, however, the bill also requires that a manufacturer does not "impose a substantial condition, obligation or restriction that is not reasonably necessary to enable an independent repair provider or an owner to diagnose, maintain, repair or update consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells"

My guess is there would be challenges in court if they made the certification process onerous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com