7 ms·

I don't understand. The bill was passed with an overwhelming, veto-proof majority. Then it sat on the Governor's desk until she made changes (after intense lobb

I don't understand. The bill was passed with an overwhelming, veto-proof majority. Then it sat on the Governor's desk until she made changes (after intense lobbying)? But the NY legislature is not in session, but the bill is signed? So how were the changes approved by the legislature? What is the precise legal mechanism here? Is this legal? My initial impression is that this is an illegal act of tyranny and should be met like that. The governor should be impeached. Or, the very fundamentals of the American democratic system have been eroded to a point I previously did not comprehend. This is not anything like the picture Schoolhouse Rock painted about how this all works. Also, with a veto-proof majority, why on earth would the legislature ever even agree to any changes? Also also, fuck the governor.

Animats 4y ago
The amendment happened back in May 2022, apparently.[1] You can read the pre-amendment and post-amendment versions there. It was pretty much gutted. Right to repair for farm equipment was removed entirely, and rights involving digital devices made far weaker. That got press coverage in June 2022.[2] Other than cell phone screen and case repair, it doesn't seem too useful. [1] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4104/amendment/a https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4104/amendm... [2] https://www.techspot.com/news/94843-new-york-senate-officially-passes-right-repair-legislation.html https://www.techspot.com/news/94843-new-york-senate-official...
- Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
  The current debate is about an agreement mentioned in memorandum 93 ( https://twitter.com/JonCampbellNY/status/1608327624526548993 https://twitter.com/JonCampbellNY/status/1608327624526548993 ), which describes changes that were not part of the amendment in May 2022. I also thought it may just be a bad summary of those changes, but it details changes that were not done in may. So it is either a very badly written memo, or there is something more going on than can not currently be seen in the public paper trail on the senate website.
  - Animats 4y ago
    The bad stuff went in back in February, 2022, and was adopted in May 2022. Compare the "Limitations" section of S4104 and S4104A. That's what guts the bill. Here's the "sponsor memo" on the amendment: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORIGINAL AND AMENDED VERSION: This version makes technical clarifications to the bill, including providing that the requirements will apply to products with a value over ten dollars, adjusted annually based on the consumer price index. Another adds that nothing in the section will require that an OEM or authorized repair provider make available any parts, tools or documentation if the intended use is for making modifications to digital electronic equipment. Others provide that nothing in the section will require an OEM or authorized repair provider to make available parts, tools or documentation for 1) public safety communications equipment used for emergency response or prevention purposes by an emergency service organization, 2) where it may be in violation of federal law such as with gaming and entertainment consoles, related software, and components, or 3) home appliances with digital electronics embedded within them. Manufacturers, distributors, importers, or dealers of off-road equipment are added to the exclusions, those to whom the requirements would not apply. Amendments also include extending the effective date of the bill from 120 days to one year after it shall have become a law.
    - Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
      the "bad stuff" currently discussed is about manufacturers only making assemblies available, not components. (that is the big topic in the linked video) I diffed S4104 and S4104A and don't see that in the changes. I also don't see the interpretation of Louis Rossmann in the old version, the definition of "part" was always quite open to interpretation and neither "component" nor "assembly" are mentioned in S4104A. But the relevant point here is: the governors memo explicitly states that the manufacturer only needs to provide assemblies, not components, if there is a risk of injury. The only change from S4104 to S4104A using the word "injury" is the new section 5 about liability. The change mentioned in the governors memo is not in the amended bill that passed Senate and Assembly in May/June 2022. The governors memo also talks about eliminating the requirement related to overriding security features, which is section 2.B of the bill. Again the change the governors memo describes is not in the amendment made earlier this year. The governors memo also talks about business to business and business to government sales. There is a point 3.E related to emergency communication equipment, but it would be a stretch to match those. Again the change the governors memo mentions as being agreed upon is not there. I would be happy if the governors approval memo is horseshit and talks nonsense. Because the alternative is that they are making backroom deals changing the bills text between senate vote and signing.
philistine 4y ago
You can also blame the system. The fact any sort of executive official can rewrite what the legislative wrote is insane. To hell with your limericks about checks and balances. Once a bill's done, no one ought to be able to stop anything.
- dietr1ch 4y ago
  It's working as intended
  - hackernewds 4y ago
    Why so?
    - noisy_boy 4y ago
      They probably mean "as intended by lobbyists".
      - mxkopy 4y ago
        No, the system was always intended to have entry points for highly interested groups to make a play, at all levels. Remember that many of the balances in place are levied against (what the founders saw as stupid) people represented by popular vote (e.g. the electoral college).
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Really wish Zeldin wasn't an election denier. That's what made me vote for governor sellout.
- themitigating 4y ago
  We often have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Not really; I refuse to vote for evil politicians (it keeps my karma nice and shiny). Unless voting is mandatory, you can simply not vote for anyone. My practice is to vote for someone that won't win, like the Greens, but for whom my vote might save them their deposit.
    - 0dayz 4y ago
      Sure, but then you can't either act surprised when the more evil politicians are elected and blame people for either not voting or voting for better politicians. You get what you vote or don't vote for
      - Retric 4y ago
        That’s only looking at a single election. Being willing to vote for scum means your party is happy to send scum to the next general election, at which point you get to vote for even more scum. Have some standards in the general election and people start looking at scum thinking their not electable.
        0dayz 4y ago
        If you want better politicians, there are two things you can do: Vote in primaries, there are different rules about this but if it means you have to join and participate in party activity to vote for a candidate then so be it. hold them accountable together as ironic as it is: as a lobbying group, or even more grandiose work together with as many citizens of the state (even across the party line, no craziness though), to hold the governor/politician accountable.
rendall 4y ago
One comment on the video a) notes that the legislature approved the changes and b) would not have passed the bill otherwise in the first place, but get to blame the governor.
- COGlory 4y ago
  How can the legislature approve changes when they are not in session? And WHY would they do that?

Animats 4y ago

The amendment happened back in May 2022, apparently.[1] You can read the pre-amendment and post-amendment versions there. It was pretty much gutted. Right to repair for farm equipment was removed entirely, and rights involving digital devices made far weaker. That got press coverage in June 2022.[2] Other than cell phone screen and case repair, it doesn't seem too useful. [1] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4104/amendment/a https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4104/amendm... [2] https://www.techspot.com/news/94843-new-york-senate-officially-passes-right-repair-legislation.html https://www.techspot.com/news/94843-new-york-senate-official...

Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
The current debate is about an agreement mentioned in memorandum 93 ( https://twitter.com/JonCampbellNY/status/1608327624526548993 https://twitter.com/JonCampbellNY/status/1608327624526548993 ), which describes changes that were not part of the amendment in May 2022. I also thought it may just be a bad summary of those changes, but it details changes that were not done in may. So it is either a very badly written memo, or there is something more going on than can not currently be seen in the public paper trail on the senate website.
- Animats 4y ago
  The bad stuff went in back in February, 2022, and was adopted in May 2022. Compare the "Limitations" section of S4104 and S4104A. That's what guts the bill. Here's the "sponsor memo" on the amendment: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORIGINAL AND AMENDED VERSION: This version makes technical clarifications to the bill, including providing that the requirements will apply to products with a value over ten dollars, adjusted annually based on the consumer price index. Another adds that nothing in the section will require that an OEM or authorized repair provider make available any parts, tools or documentation if the intended use is for making modifications to digital electronic equipment. Others provide that nothing in the section will require an OEM or authorized repair provider to make available parts, tools or documentation for 1) public safety communications equipment used for emergency response or prevention purposes by an emergency service organization, 2) where it may be in violation of federal law such as with gaming and entertainment consoles, related software, and components, or 3) home appliances with digital electronics embedded within them. Manufacturers, distributors, importers, or dealers of off-road equipment are added to the exclusions, those to whom the requirements would not apply. Amendments also include extending the effective date of the bill from 120 days to one year after it shall have become a law.
  - Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
    the "bad stuff" currently discussed is about manufacturers only making assemblies available, not components. (that is the big topic in the linked video) I diffed S4104 and S4104A and don't see that in the changes. I also don't see the interpretation of Louis Rossmann in the old version, the definition of "part" was always quite open to interpretation and neither "component" nor "assembly" are mentioned in S4104A. But the relevant point here is: the governors memo explicitly states that the manufacturer only needs to provide assemblies, not components, if there is a risk of injury. The only change from S4104 to S4104A using the word "injury" is the new section 5 about liability. The change mentioned in the governors memo is not in the amended bill that passed Senate and Assembly in May/June 2022. The governors memo also talks about eliminating the requirement related to overriding security features, which is section 2.B of the bill. Again the change the governors memo describes is not in the amendment made earlier this year. The governors memo also talks about business to business and business to government sales. There is a point 3.E related to emergency communication equipment, but it would be a stretch to match those. Again the change the governors memo mentions as being agreed upon is not there. I would be happy if the governors approval memo is horseshit and talks nonsense. Because the alternative is that they are making backroom deals changing the bills text between senate vote and signing.

philistine 4y ago

You can also blame the system. The fact any sort of executive official can rewrite what the legislative wrote is insane. To hell with your limericks about checks and balances. Once a bill's done, no one ought to be able to stop anything.

dietr1ch 4y ago
It's working as intended
- hackernewds 4y ago
  Why so?
  - noisy_boy 4y ago
    They probably mean "as intended by lobbyists".
    - mxkopy 4y ago
      No, the system was always intended to have entry points for highly interested groups to make a play, at all levels. Remember that many of the balances in place are levied against (what the founders saw as stupid) people represented by popular vote (e.g. the electoral college).

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

Really wish Zeldin wasn't an election denier. That's what made me vote for governor sellout.

themitigating 4y ago
We often have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Not really; I refuse to vote for evil politicians (it keeps my karma nice and shiny). Unless voting is mandatory, you can simply not vote for anyone. My practice is to vote for someone that won't win, like the Greens, but for whom my vote might save them their deposit.
  - 0dayz 4y ago
    Sure, but then you can't either act surprised when the more evil politicians are elected and blame people for either not voting or voting for better politicians. You get what you vote or don't vote for
    - Retric 4y ago
      That’s only looking at a single election. Being willing to vote for scum means your party is happy to send scum to the next general election, at which point you get to vote for even more scum. Have some standards in the general election and people start looking at scum thinking their not electable.
      - 0dayz 4y ago
        If you want better politicians, there are two things you can do: Vote in primaries, there are different rules about this but if it means you have to join and participate in party activity to vote for a candidate then so be it. hold them accountable together as ironic as it is: as a lobbying group, or even more grandiose work together with as many citizens of the state (even across the party line, no craziness though), to hold the governor/politician accountable.

rendall 4y ago

One comment on the video a) notes that the legislature approved the changes and b) would not have passed the bill otherwise in the first place, but get to blame the governor.

COGlory 4y ago
How can the legislature approve changes when they are not in session? And WHY would they do that?