Oregon's governor signs right-to-repair law that bans 'parts pairing' | Hacker News Reader

Oregon's governor signs right-to-repair law that bans 'parts pairing'

theverge.com

36 pointsmfiguiere13 comments

The newest car I own is from 1999 which I believe is blissfully unaffected, but shortly thereafter I believe they were "coding" ECUs and TCUs in the name of "theft prevention", basically ensuring it's impossible to swap out a transmission without going to the dealership to kiss the ring in the form of a large amount of money to "code" the controller. I will absolutely not buy anything newer until this BS is put firmly to rest:

> Some products — like devices powered by combustion engines, medical equipment, farming equipment, HVAC equipment, video game consoles, and energy storage systems — are excluded from Oregon’s rules entirely.

EDIT: there is no good answer other than open firmware and standards. You should not be allowed to sell machines that cannot be maintained. It's abhorrent.

EDIT2: If I feel the need for a "theft preventer" I can get one that takes 12ga. 3" magnum shells. Alternating 00 buck and 3/4oz slug. Works equally well on moose, bears, thieves, and dealership service managers ;).

> If I feel the need for a "theft preventer" I can get one that takes 12ga. 3" magnum shells. Alternating 00 buck and 3/4oz slug. Works equally well on moose, bears, thieves, and dealership service managers ;).

It doesn't tend to work very well when you leave the car unattended, unfortunately!

That's a fact, but I've never had anyone part out my car while it's parked. It's an equally silly scenario as the (I hope obviously tongue-in-cheek) Charlton Heston-esque scenario I attempted to invoke. The fact is the "theft prevention" excuse to prevent end users from being able to maintain their equipment is utter nonsense.

To be clear, I'm in favor of the right to repair here. But I think the concern is not someone parting out a car in a public parking space, but rather stealing a car from a public parking space and parting it out at a second location?

I guess I'd need to see some statistical evidence that this is actually a problem. I have trouble believing there's any expectation value that benefits me, the consumer, in this scenario. My 1999 vehicle has really bottomed out in terms of depreciation but it's still tip-top mechanically. It'll totally go for another 30+yr with regular maintenance and some basic rust prevention. So given even a reasonable chance of stealing, it's hard to believe that's a realistic concern. Most likely the repair scenario I'll be faced with is instead a subcomponent will wear out. So the "theft prevention" idea is just... larping, really.

Edgy!

Seems that this doesn’t really do anything to change what Apple does… the messages you get from a swapped Apple part is that they can’t verify if the part is authentic. They also disable some functionality likely due to calibration issues… I doubt Apple is going to be forced to provide calibration data (if they even can) to users for random parts they put in their system.

There is nothing about the parts functions that actually requires pairing, or the bogus "calibration" ceremonies, and so they can not show or explain how they are functionally necessary, and so the law does block that.

But I'm sure they will just move some things around to produce the same ultimate effect while no longer technically doing serial number pairing or bogus "calibration" ceremonies that somehow didn't need to be done for the entire history of electronics before now, and somehow can't be done automatically or by the end user or by any other technician.

The law is a step in the right direction by trying to talk about the ends at least a little vs the means, but only barely.

The driver of Apple's behavior has not changed, so telling Apple they can't do specifically X is like trying to contain water with a pole. You stopped the water in one spot, and the water went right around it in infinite other spots.

But the law at least a little bit tries to say the user must be able to do things instead of only saying specific things Apple can't do.

And then it goes and allows mist of the actual offenders to keep on offending to the point that Apple is almost the only ones actually affected!

Maybe they figure it's a neccessary start? Where they know the exceptions make no sense, but at least they are exceptions, and so after some time with this version to become normal, after some years they can shine a light on the exceptions and get some public support by asking "why don't these guys have to obey the same law as everyone else?"

or maybe another angle is after some years they will be able to show how other industries changed for the better, so it's harder to argue that these still have any defensible right to any exception.

In any event, plan or no plan, they probably simply would not have been able to pass the good complete version of the law. So like always the choice is this ratty moth-eaten rag version or nothing at all.

I wonder how manufacturers will reconcile this with their promise of device security. I'm mostly against parts pairing but I do like the fact that someone can't steal my iPhone and resell everything. It's mostly dead weight to them (unless they know my password ig)

Parts paring also has to do with device security...

Most of the parts are computer systems in their own right. The last thing you want is them to get replaced with "compromised" versions.

Not one of the rationalizations Apple gives for any of the things they do are actually required in order to produce the desired functionality, including secondary effects like the incentives of theives.

I build you a house with very solid walls and doors. No one is getting in without the keys. I do not give you the keys. You have to ask me to let you in every time, and I decide if you're you and should be allowed in.

It is a true statement that the house is secure from theives.

It is not a true statement that you can't have the keys to your house because "security".

I actually think having the device become unusable, if not under the user’s control, is terrible from an environmental stand point, as the device is useless and has to be scraped.

It would be much better if instead of locking everyone out of the device, it instead gets wiped after some conditions are met. This way your data isn’t compromised and the device can be used by other parties.

There are plenty of cases where the device isn’t stolen this affects, such as someone dying, or an employee not removing their Apple ID when handing back in work equipment.

Apple gains by having the device become unusable, as it is taken out of circulation.

This is cool, but how will they enforce it against someone like Apple? If I buy my next iPhone in Oregon, I'll have the right to repair it / buy non-VIN-locked parts?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com