6 ms·

"Providing open access to the technical specifications of consumer electronics would enable criminals to “more easily circumvent security protections, harming n

"Providing open access to the technical specifications of consumer electronics would enable criminals to “more easily circumvent security protections, harming not only the product owner but also everyone who shares their network,” and "On the other end, John Deere argues that access to the company’s proprietary software could be used to bypass emissions controls or safety measures" Of course they're doing it all for our own safety. It makes me mad when people bring up security through obscurity as a reason for locking down devices. It's such a blatant lie.

olliej 7y ago
But you have to be careful about criminals. They’re always criming. I think there are many reasons for not supporting repair - some better some worse - but this is still the most stupid one.
minipci1321 7y ago
> It's such a blatant lie. yes and no. Most today's CE devices lose 3/4 of their utility when disconnected from their shared medium. People running such mediums usually require some sort of certification from the participant devices, and in case the device has been modified, a re-certification after modifications is usually required. Even replacing a couple of diodes by a looking-close-on-paper analogue might harm performance for neighboring participants in the communication. I let you imagine what one could do with arbitrary firmware images on a fully unlocked device. I'd be curious to see what solutions to that the infrastructure people work out when these laws are eventually adopted.
- chipperyman573 7y ago
  If you design a system where remote users are impacted by other remote users' malicious actions, you've just created a bad system. "Criminals" can still do anything they want to the firmware of a JD, it's just illegal. Nothing actually stops them. But if JD designed a system that prevented local modification from affecting others, then they wouldn't have this problem.
  - minipci1321 7y ago
    Absolutely agree! Also in that world, all engineers would be smart, given all the necessary information, all equipped with all expensive measurement tools, and be given enough time to do good work (and motivated to do that). After coming back home at 5pm, they would grab the same expensive measurement equipment and start hacking on their devices, putting in the same high quality and knowledge and high conscience. Illegal? Criminal? Mind you, a noob replacing a diode without knowing better, like I said.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > let you imagine what one could do with arbitrary firmware images on a fully unlocked device. You could .. avoid paying the manufacturer's fees for re-enabling features that the firmware has disabled? You could refill your ink cartridges? Bad actors at this layer seem to be quite rare. And the whole reason everyone uses the unlicensed bands is the freedom to transmit (and expectation of recieving) arbitrary signals.
  - minipci1321 7y ago
    > Bad actors at this layer seem to be quite rare. I think our experience is rather limited for the moment to tell (ok, barring refilled cartridges ;-), since bad acting is inhibited by existing mechanisms. (Even with cartridges -- what if your new yellow ink breaks that hidden watermarking that certain people have come to rely on?) Compliant device receives an accepted designator (certificate), non-compliant device is not expected to have it. This model can easily be broken, unless it is being taken care of somehow in the new model. Unlicensed bands are a tiny part of the entire aired RF spectrum -- and we didn't even start speaking of devices sharing a wired RF medium.
- lostmyoldone 7y ago
  Firstly, one wouldn't have to use the "close on paper" if spare parts, or real specs, were actually available. Secondly, as analog electronics, where the non-compliance argument might matter, are generally built of devices with 5-20% tolerances. Close enough is usually close enough, if you can get the right specs to start with. Thirdly, the parts of modern communication networks that can actually be affected by component choice is a miniscule part, of the complete systems. Sincr almost no modern communication device is built with more than a few discreet devices around a special RF chip, you really can only repair it with the same chip, and trivially replaceable components. I can go on. Yes, there are certifications, sometimes they are important and necessary, but usually they are there for business reasons. To create lock-in, or otherwise increase revenue, or to avoid blame by making it look like you care. I have yet to see an industry certification which has not clearly put in place for a business reason. For non-industry certifications, there would be no difference in who does the repair, re-certification would be necessary, and society aldready handles this in areas where it's actually needed for safety reasons.
  - minipci1321 7y ago
    > I can go on. I'll skip that too. I have a counter argument literally for every your affirmation. Big part of modern CE devices do not fit into your description (or at least, we clearly have in mind very different ones). The more expensive a device, the more complex it generally is, and the higher is the motivation to repair it. I don't think we need the law only to repair car fobs and wireless door keys. > I have yet to see an industry certification which has not clearly put in place for a business reason. Since when business reasons became intrinsically bad? Aren't we on HN?
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      >> I have yet to see an industry certification which has not clearly put in place for a business reason. > Since when business reasons became intrinsically bad? The way I read it, it's a shorthand for "has nothing to do with a fair trade of value in exchange for money". > Aren't we on HN? HN is not a place frequented by wolves of Wall Street.
lostmyoldone 7y ago
Yeah, it's absolutely infuriating, especially when you know how most businesses tend to ignore any and all security measures not forced by law, or widespread customer revolt. One of the worst arguments imo is that argument about emission control circumvention. It's so disingenuous it makes me almost sick. Sure, protecting the environment is critically important - at least in my opinion - but it's certainly not this supposed mass of people circumventing emission controls that are the real criminals when it comes to environmental damage. Businesses seems to proudly, and continually, carry that torch by themselves. As long as not laws or widespread public outcry makes it impossible for them to make business, environmental damage is a absolutely ignored by all but a very few.
swiley 7y ago
I’ve never had these problems on my thinkpad running Linux. Why does my phone have to mitigate them?
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> "On the other end, John Deere argues that access to the company’s proprietary software could be used to bypass emissions controls or safety measures" They do have a point on emission controls, though. Pretty much every person I know that owns a diesel car has either ripped out or plans to rip out the particulate filter. Doesn't matter that it's illegal, doesn't matter that it hurts everyone around. People just don't care. I'm all for the right to inspect and mod electronics, hardware and software alike, but we also need alternative ways to stop socially irresponsible people.
- mulmen 7y ago
  You mean like emission testing? What happens in 15 years when that particulate filter wears out and nobody can fix it but the rest of the car is fine?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > You mean like emission testing? Would be great. > What happens in 15 years when that particulate filter wears out and nobody can fix it but the rest of the car is fine? If it weren't so easy to get away with not having that filter, then what would happen is a secondary market that sells replacement filters for old cars, just like it happens for every other car part.
    - mulmen 7y ago
      > Would be great. In my state any vehicle under 25 years old must go in for emission testing every few years or the tabs can't be renewed. > If it weren't so easy to get away with not having that filter, then what would happen is a secondary market that sells replacement filters for old cars, just like it happens for every other car part. Assuming owners have a right to repair of course.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        Many states have gotten away from tailpipe sniffer inspections (more expensive and less convenient) and gone to visual and car ECU inspections (hook up the scanner, if there are no emission related codes and the car reports “ready”, you’re good).
cpuguy83 7y ago
Sounds like the same argument made against open source.

olliej 7y ago

But you have to be careful about criminals. They’re always criming. I think there are many reasons for not supporting repair - some better some worse - but this is still the most stupid one.

minipci1321 7y ago

> It's such a blatant lie. yes and no. Most today's CE devices lose 3/4 of their utility when disconnected from their shared medium. People running such mediums usually require some sort of certification from the participant devices, and in case the device has been modified, a re-certification after modifications is usually required. Even replacing a couple of diodes by a looking-close-on-paper analogue might harm performance for neighboring participants in the communication. I let you imagine what one could do with arbitrary firmware images on a fully unlocked device. I'd be curious to see what solutions to that the infrastructure people work out when these laws are eventually adopted.

chipperyman573 7y ago
If you design a system where remote users are impacted by other remote users' malicious actions, you've just created a bad system. "Criminals" can still do anything they want to the firmware of a JD, it's just illegal. Nothing actually stops them. But if JD designed a system that prevented local modification from affecting others, then they wouldn't have this problem.
- minipci1321 7y ago
  Absolutely agree! Also in that world, all engineers would be smart, given all the necessary information, all equipped with all expensive measurement tools, and be given enough time to do good work (and motivated to do that). After coming back home at 5pm, they would grab the same expensive measurement equipment and start hacking on their devices, putting in the same high quality and knowledge and high conscience. Illegal? Criminal? Mind you, a noob replacing a diode without knowing better, like I said.
pjc50 7y ago
> let you imagine what one could do with arbitrary firmware images on a fully unlocked device. You could .. avoid paying the manufacturer's fees for re-enabling features that the firmware has disabled? You could refill your ink cartridges? Bad actors at this layer seem to be quite rare. And the whole reason everyone uses the unlicensed bands is the freedom to transmit (and expectation of recieving) arbitrary signals.
- minipci1321 7y ago
  > Bad actors at this layer seem to be quite rare. I think our experience is rather limited for the moment to tell (ok, barring refilled cartridges ;-), since bad acting is inhibited by existing mechanisms. (Even with cartridges -- what if your new yellow ink breaks that hidden watermarking that certain people have come to rely on?) Compliant device receives an accepted designator (certificate), non-compliant device is not expected to have it. This model can easily be broken, unless it is being taken care of somehow in the new model. Unlicensed bands are a tiny part of the entire aired RF spectrum -- and we didn't even start speaking of devices sharing a wired RF medium.
lostmyoldone 7y ago
Firstly, one wouldn't have to use the "close on paper" if spare parts, or real specs, were actually available. Secondly, as analog electronics, where the non-compliance argument might matter, are generally built of devices with 5-20% tolerances. Close enough is usually close enough, if you can get the right specs to start with. Thirdly, the parts of modern communication networks that can actually be affected by component choice is a miniscule part, of the complete systems. Sincr almost no modern communication device is built with more than a few discreet devices around a special RF chip, you really can only repair it with the same chip, and trivially replaceable components. I can go on. Yes, there are certifications, sometimes they are important and necessary, but usually they are there for business reasons. To create lock-in, or otherwise increase revenue, or to avoid blame by making it look like you care. I have yet to see an industry certification which has not clearly put in place for a business reason. For non-industry certifications, there would be no difference in who does the repair, re-certification would be necessary, and society aldready handles this in areas where it's actually needed for safety reasons.
- minipci1321 7y ago
  > I can go on. I'll skip that too. I have a counter argument literally for every your affirmation. Big part of modern CE devices do not fit into your description (or at least, we clearly have in mind very different ones). The more expensive a device, the more complex it generally is, and the higher is the motivation to repair it. I don't think we need the law only to repair car fobs and wireless door keys. > I have yet to see an industry certification which has not clearly put in place for a business reason. Since when business reasons became intrinsically bad? Aren't we on HN?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    >> I have yet to see an industry certification which has not clearly put in place for a business reason. > Since when business reasons became intrinsically bad? The way I read it, it's a shorthand for "has nothing to do with a fair trade of value in exchange for money". > Aren't we on HN? HN is not a place frequented by wolves of Wall Street.

lostmyoldone 7y ago

Yeah, it's absolutely infuriating, especially when you know how most businesses tend to ignore any and all security measures not forced by law, or widespread customer revolt. One of the worst arguments imo is that argument about emission control circumvention. It's so disingenuous it makes me almost sick. Sure, protecting the environment is critically important - at least in my opinion - but it's certainly not this supposed mass of people circumventing emission controls that are the real criminals when it comes to environmental damage. Businesses seems to proudly, and continually, carry that torch by themselves. As long as not laws or widespread public outcry makes it impossible for them to make business, environmental damage is a absolutely ignored by all but a very few.

swiley 7y ago

I’ve never had these problems on my thinkpad running Linux. Why does my phone have to mitigate them?

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> "On the other end, John Deere argues that access to the company’s proprietary software could be used to bypass emissions controls or safety measures" They do have a point on emission controls, though. Pretty much every person I know that owns a diesel car has either ripped out or plans to rip out the particulate filter. Doesn't matter that it's illegal, doesn't matter that it hurts everyone around. People just don't care. I'm all for the right to inspect and mod electronics, hardware and software alike, but we also need alternative ways to stop socially irresponsible people.

mulmen 7y ago
You mean like emission testing? What happens in 15 years when that particulate filter wears out and nobody can fix it but the rest of the car is fine?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > You mean like emission testing? Would be great. > What happens in 15 years when that particulate filter wears out and nobody can fix it but the rest of the car is fine? If it weren't so easy to get away with not having that filter, then what would happen is a secondary market that sells replacement filters for old cars, just like it happens for every other car part.
  - mulmen 7y ago
    > Would be great. In my state any vehicle under 25 years old must go in for emission testing every few years or the tabs can't be renewed. > If it weren't so easy to get away with not having that filter, then what would happen is a secondary market that sells replacement filters for old cars, just like it happens for every other car part. Assuming owners have a right to repair of course.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      Many states have gotten away from tailpipe sniffer inspections (more expensive and less convenient) and gone to visual and car ECU inspections (hook up the scanner, if there are no emission related codes and the car reports “ready”, you’re good).

cpuguy83 7y ago

Sounds like the same argument made against open source.