7 ms·

Am I being a bit naive to think that this has more to do with public safety? In theory, there is some increased level of regulation/review of the car and medica

Am I being a bit naive to think that this has more to do with public safety? In theory, there is some increased level of regulation/review of the car and medical device manufacturers that limits the risk these repairs aren’t done to an appropriate standard? You can make a trade-off between standard of repair and price for your iPhone that only impacts the device, but cars and medical devices not properly repaired could impact a life.

joshspankit 5y ago
You’ve used a grey argument. Apple themselves have argued that one of the reasons they have to limit repair is for public safety (someone could have a battery explode if they pierce it, for example), whereas we could also argue the other side: that if someone modifies their own medical device and gets hurt because of it that they legally only hurt themselves because they had the right to make that choice. IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual?
- eganist 5y ago
  > that if someone modifies their own medical device and gets hurt because of it that they legally only hurt themselves because they had the right to make that choice. Well, while this applies to medical devices, worth noting this doesn't apply to cars, for which safety inspections have existed in many states for quite a while.
  - joshspankit 5y ago
    I’d argue that it does apply to cars as safety inspections don’t apply when you keep a vehicle within the bounds of private property.
    - noizejoy 5y ago
      Would that be similar to having an iPhone never connected to the Internet?
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  > IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? This is a really great way to put it, and it applies broadly to so many fundamental disagreements in the tech world. I firmly believe it’s better to trust the individual—so I think users should be able to sideload iOS apps (only if they want to) and install their own root certificates. Others think individuals can’t be trusted, and so we should let tech companies dictate what is safe for everyone else.
  - wiz21c 5y ago
    > IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? In the US, I think, some companies sell weapons and nobody seems to care if people can hurt themselves with them.
    - ff317 5y ago
      The comparison is more appropriate than you maybe even intended. Cars are considered weapons (e.g. driving at someone is assault with a deadly weapon), and cars are very dangerous in general and kill lots of people (and not just the drivers!). Yet, we still want right-to-repair on cars.
      - naikrovek 5y ago
        we HAVE right to repair on cars, and we've had it for decades. it's why the OBD-II port is standardized and mandated. it's why you can buy tools built only by the auto manufacturers for working on their own cars. it's why auto manufacturers are required to sell every part and every tool to end customers for at least 10 years after a model year is no longer manufactured. it's why third-party replacement parts are available AT ALL. people forget all this. this is the same thing people want for farm vehicles and personal electronics. we got it done for cars and trucks in the late 1980s. I don't understand why it's so hard to get lawmakers on the side of the customer --their constituents-- today.
- kube-system 5y ago
  While Apple has made that argument, their devices are not primarily intended to support life, and the vast majority of failures due to bad repairs don't kill people. And often with medical devices, they may often be supporting the life of someone other than the original purchaser and sole maintainer.
JAlexoid 5y ago
These laws obligate the manufacturer to release maintenance and repair manuals, like the ones they provide to the authorized service centers; and ban all litigation related to someone providing unauthorized services, etc... Depending on the law, it may also require more documentation, ban on total lockdown of devices and obligation to sell spare parts(but you often can buy genuine spare parts through service centers) Right to fix also doesn't cover warranties, as you will loose your warranty when doing it yourself. For cars or medical equipment - that's clearly political influence, masquerading as "public safety". There's nothing stopping me from modifying my car to be very dangerous right now, without even affecting my warranty. The difference - I cannot install a third party keyfob, because the protocol is locked down. The kind of medical equipment that hospitals require, already comes with multi-decade support. And your CPAP device can be serviced by someone without manufacturer specific training(that costs a fortune, for little practical value).
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  > Right to fix also doesn't cover warranties, as you will loose your warranty when doing it yourself. The Magnussen-Moss warranty act of 1975 states (IANAL) that a repair cannot void the warranty unless the manufacturer can prove that your repair caused the damage in question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
  - kube-system 5y ago
    This is correct. Those "warranty void if broken" stickers are only worth as much as they mislead people into not bothering to push for warranty claims. (and if it's on something that's not a "consumer good")
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
valine 5y ago
Also right to repair obviously can't apply to an implanted device. Those devices are hermetically sealed and disposed of after explant.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  Medtronic insulin pumps are routinely hacked by their owners: https://www.google.com/amp/s/medicalxpress.com/news/2019-06-hacking-diabetes-people-insulin-alternative.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/medicalxpress.com/news/2019-06-... Sorry for the Google amp link. There’s also this kind of medical device hacking (again not black hat): https://hackaday.com/2020/07/15/diy-dongle-breathes-life-into-broken-ventilators/ https://hackaday.com/2020/07/15/diy-dongle-breathes-life-int... And open-source ventilator software: https://hackaday.com/2020/03/30/professional-ventilator-design-open-sourced-today-by-medtronic/ https://hackaday.com/2020/03/30/professional-ventilator-desi...
  - zeusk 5y ago
    Right to repair isn't exactly supporting homebrew software although it'd help to have schematics.
syshum 5y ago
Public Safety is never a reason to oppose Right to Repair, to the extent there are safety concerns they can be elevated with out needing to curb independent or self repair That said, Safety is red herring that the industries use to justify their anti-consumer actions with zero actual data to back their position. The Record are cars is clear and estiblished people self repair and use independant repair all the time to fix mechnical safety systems like breaks with no systemic issues or damage to public safety For medical devices I have yet to see any data the independent repair causes any harm, in fact I believe the the US Government has a study that states Independent Repair of Medical Equipment is critical to maintaining the US Health System, so in the case of Health Care prohibitions on independent repair may CAUSE public health issues by taking critical equipment out of service waiting on "authorized" repair or parts
Causality1 5y ago
Would you rather have amateur repairs being done by someone who has access to proper documentation or by someone who does not?
- waych 5y ago
  This assumes that the first party seller is competent, motivated and capable of using their first party documents to good effect performing repairs. Consider the Apple Genius bar for an easy counter example. edit: may have misinterpreted what you wrote. Nobody should have to have amateurs perform repairs, whether they are first party or not.
  - Causality1 5y ago
    Nobody should be forced to use an amateur, certainly. I'm saying that if you can't afford a professional repair, you want the amateur to have access to the best information available, whether that person is you or someone else.
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
Louis Rossman gave an example which I believe really happened. A surgery chair that cost tens of thousands of dollars needed a new riser motor. Just an electric motor to move the chair up and down. But the company that makes the electric motor had an agreement with the chair manufacturer not to sell replacement parts. So the only recourse instead of replacing a $500 motor is to replace an entire surgery chair for tens of thousands of dollars. Given the cost of medical care in this country I think it would be a very good thing if that agreement not to sell parts was against the law. Surely an electric motor to raise a chair up and down could be replaced with the correct part without compromising anyone’s safety.
- znpy 5y ago
  > Given the cost of medical care in this country although in this specific case in example, if the country you're talking about are the US, having access to the $500 motor only means wider profit margins for the hostpital, not necessarily lower bills for hospitalized people.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    Perhaps, but it’s clear we must both lower costs (fix repair laws) and provide free medical care for everyone. So fixing repair is one important step towards an end goal of health care for everyone.
    - spicybright 5y ago
      I agree, but I'd also say there's a line between inconsequential things like a chair motor, and something giving life support to someone. It would suck to die because the repair guy didn't solder the wire correctly. It's really tough to draw that line though, and it's in the manufactures interest $ + lawsuit wise to play it safe.
      - noizejoy 5y ago
        Money wasted leads to money not available for life support.
Veedrac 5y ago
This is the wrong place to regulate that. If buildings need to adhere to certain fire safety requirements, you have a law that says people modifying the property need to follow those requirements. You don't make a law that says only the original builder of the house is allowed to repair the house.

joshspankit 5y ago

You’ve used a grey argument. Apple themselves have argued that one of the reasons they have to limit repair is for public safety (someone could have a battery explode if they pierce it, for example), whereas we could also argue the other side: that if someone modifies their own medical device and gets hurt because of it that they legally only hurt themselves because they had the right to make that choice. IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual?

eganist 5y ago
> that if someone modifies their own medical device and gets hurt because of it that they legally only hurt themselves because they had the right to make that choice. Well, while this applies to medical devices, worth noting this doesn't apply to cars, for which safety inspections have existed in many states for quite a while.
- joshspankit 5y ago
  I’d argue that it does apply to cars as safety inspections don’t apply when you keep a vehicle within the bounds of private property.
  - noizejoy 5y ago
    Would that be similar to having an iPhone never connected to the Internet?
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
> IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? This is a really great way to put it, and it applies broadly to so many fundamental disagreements in the tech world. I firmly believe it’s better to trust the individual—so I think users should be able to sideload iOS apps (only if they want to) and install their own root certificates. Others think individuals can’t be trusted, and so we should let tech companies dictate what is safe for everyone else.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  > IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? In the US, I think, some companies sell weapons and nobody seems to care if people can hurt themselves with them.
  - ff317 5y ago
    The comparison is more appropriate than you maybe even intended. Cars are considered weapons (e.g. driving at someone is assault with a deadly weapon), and cars are very dangerous in general and kill lots of people (and not just the drivers!). Yet, we still want right-to-repair on cars.
    - naikrovek 5y ago
      we HAVE right to repair on cars, and we've had it for decades. it's why the OBD-II port is standardized and mandated. it's why you can buy tools built only by the auto manufacturers for working on their own cars. it's why auto manufacturers are required to sell every part and every tool to end customers for at least 10 years after a model year is no longer manufactured. it's why third-party replacement parts are available AT ALL. people forget all this. this is the same thing people want for farm vehicles and personal electronics. we got it done for cars and trucks in the late 1980s. I don't understand why it's so hard to get lawmakers on the side of the customer --their constituents-- today.
kube-system 5y ago
While Apple has made that argument, their devices are not primarily intended to support life, and the vast majority of failures due to bad repairs don't kill people. And often with medical devices, they may often be supporting the life of someone other than the original purchaser and sole maintainer.

JAlexoid 5y ago

These laws obligate the manufacturer to release maintenance and repair manuals, like the ones they provide to the authorized service centers; and ban all litigation related to someone providing unauthorized services, etc... Depending on the law, it may also require more documentation, ban on total lockdown of devices and obligation to sell spare parts(but you often can buy genuine spare parts through service centers) Right to fix also doesn't cover warranties, as you will loose your warranty when doing it yourself. For cars or medical equipment - that's clearly political influence, masquerading as "public safety". There's nothing stopping me from modifying my car to be very dangerous right now, without even affecting my warranty. The difference - I cannot install a third party keyfob, because the protocol is locked down. The kind of medical equipment that hospitals require, already comes with multi-decade support. And your CPAP device can be serviced by someone without manufacturer specific training(that costs a fortune, for little practical value).

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
> Right to fix also doesn't cover warranties, as you will loose your warranty when doing it yourself. The Magnussen-Moss warranty act of 1975 states (IANAL) that a repair cannot void the warranty unless the manufacturer can prove that your repair caused the damage in question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
- kube-system 5y ago
  This is correct. Those "warranty void if broken" stickers are only worth as much as they mislead people into not bothering to push for warranty claims. (and if it's on something that's not a "consumer good")

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

valine 5y ago

Also right to repair obviously can't apply to an implanted device. Those devices are hermetically sealed and disposed of after explant.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
Medtronic insulin pumps are routinely hacked by their owners: https://www.google.com/amp/s/medicalxpress.com/news/2019-06-hacking-diabetes-people-insulin-alternative.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/medicalxpress.com/news/2019-06-... Sorry for the Google amp link. There’s also this kind of medical device hacking (again not black hat): https://hackaday.com/2020/07/15/diy-dongle-breathes-life-into-broken-ventilators/ https://hackaday.com/2020/07/15/diy-dongle-breathes-life-int... And open-source ventilator software: https://hackaday.com/2020/03/30/professional-ventilator-design-open-sourced-today-by-medtronic/ https://hackaday.com/2020/03/30/professional-ventilator-desi...
- zeusk 5y ago
  Right to repair isn't exactly supporting homebrew software although it'd help to have schematics.

syshum 5y ago

Public Safety is never a reason to oppose Right to Repair, to the extent there are safety concerns they can be elevated with out needing to curb independent or self repair That said, Safety is red herring that the industries use to justify their anti-consumer actions with zero actual data to back their position. The Record are cars is clear and estiblished people self repair and use independant repair all the time to fix mechnical safety systems like breaks with no systemic issues or damage to public safety For medical devices I have yet to see any data the independent repair causes any harm, in fact I believe the the US Government has a study that states Independent Repair of Medical Equipment is critical to maintaining the US Health System, so in the case of Health Care prohibitions on independent repair may CAUSE public health issues by taking critical equipment out of service waiting on "authorized" repair or parts

Causality1 5y ago

Would you rather have amateur repairs being done by someone who has access to proper documentation or by someone who does not?

waych 5y ago
This assumes that the first party seller is competent, motivated and capable of using their first party documents to good effect performing repairs. Consider the Apple Genius bar for an easy counter example. edit: may have misinterpreted what you wrote. Nobody should have to have amateurs perform repairs, whether they are first party or not.
- Causality1 5y ago
  Nobody should be forced to use an amateur, certainly. I'm saying that if you can't afford a professional repair, you want the amateur to have access to the best information available, whether that person is you or someone else.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

Louis Rossman gave an example which I believe really happened. A surgery chair that cost tens of thousands of dollars needed a new riser motor. Just an electric motor to move the chair up and down. But the company that makes the electric motor had an agreement with the chair manufacturer not to sell replacement parts. So the only recourse instead of replacing a $500 motor is to replace an entire surgery chair for tens of thousands of dollars. Given the cost of medical care in this country I think it would be a very good thing if that agreement not to sell parts was against the law. Surely an electric motor to raise a chair up and down could be replaced with the correct part without compromising anyone’s safety.

znpy 5y ago
> Given the cost of medical care in this country although in this specific case in example, if the country you're talking about are the US, having access to the $500 motor only means wider profit margins for the hostpital, not necessarily lower bills for hospitalized people.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Perhaps, but it’s clear we must both lower costs (fix repair laws) and provide free medical care for everyone. So fixing repair is one important step towards an end goal of health care for everyone.
  - spicybright 5y ago
    I agree, but I'd also say there's a line between inconsequential things like a chair motor, and something giving life support to someone. It would suck to die because the repair guy didn't solder the wire correctly. It's really tough to draw that line though, and it's in the manufactures interest $ + lawsuit wise to play it safe.
    - noizejoy 5y ago
      Money wasted leads to money not available for life support.

Veedrac 5y ago

This is the wrong place to regulate that. If buildings need to adhere to certain fire safety requirements, you have a law that says people modifying the property need to follow those requirements. You don't make a law that says only the original builder of the house is allowed to repair the house.