6 ms·

California Right to Repair Signed into Law

198 points by 1970-01-01 3y ago

jchw 3y ago
> Exemptions: game consoles, alarm systems, agricultural and forestry equipment So basically, you have the right to repair things as long as it's not a John Deere, an Xbox, or an alarm system. Those things are magical in nature and we must not anger the gods of their making. I can't take anyone seriously who defends these things. I don't need a devil's advocate for what it's worth; I've heard the arguments, and I'm about as convinced about them as I am the case for a flat Earth.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  Clearly they don't want you to release the magic smoke Does documentation mean how to replace the operating system/firmware and any necessary signing keys?
- imbusy111 3y ago
  The agricultural exemption really sucks, but the force was probably too strong. We'll get John Deere next time.
- dghughes 3y ago
  >Exemptions: game consoles, alarm systems, agricultural and forestry equipment I don't understand how people seem to think their food just appears out of thin air. Farming is a 24/7 job and is hard on equipment. Repairing farm equipment is at least 50% of the job. Games consoles, alarm systems, or trees don't feed anyone. Maybe if farmers go on strike now of all times the fall which is harvest time and let the food rot. Let's see how long people can go without or with reduced availability of food. "Oh no my tractor broke down and I can't repair it"
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - awesomeMilou 3y ago
    I agree. I'm honestly surprised by how much shit US farmers are willing to take from John Deere. Not to make this political, but you'd expect a group that largely votes Republican to be a bit more radical and unfair in fighting an unethical company.
    - digging 3y ago
      They're probably tired, scared, and unorganized. John Deere's bullshit only makes them more scared and unorganized, and not less tired. I'm sure they're not taking this shit because they're ok with it, but farmers have to take a lot of shit from a lot of powerful organizations to get by.
      - jimnotgym 3y ago
        > unorganized If they are anything like British farmers they would rather get shafted by John Deere than work together with their neighbours.
    - colpabar 3y ago
      Well, if/when they ever do fight back, they will immediately be labelled right wing nutjobs by the mainstream media and no one will care about who/what they're fighting against, and you'll see lots of "well, I usually support right to repair, but those trump hats were really scary and john deere's position is actually kind of reasonable" comments here.
  - 6510 3y ago
    I think if we've learned anything during corona it should be that there are different tiers of economic activity. 4) that what we absolutely need, 3) that what would be nice to have, 2) that what serves no purpose/we would be better of without and 1) that what we've failed to ban. If we strictly define those we can then proceed to rate those who consume our attention and those tasked with governing by the ratio of time they spend on each. No doubt we are all guilty pondering niceties rather than necessities. Imagine an idea for a startup that is necessary.
- segmondy 3y ago
  You have to start somewhere. I rather the right to repair cover 90% of things than 0% of things. We can eventually fight for right to repair the rest.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Agreed. As much as I hate that John Deere escaped this one, we can regroup now and will have a getter position of bargaining since it's only "expanding" an existing law rather than creating a new one from scratch.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      We can regroup? The people who write these laws have all the power already. They just have to write things down and if you don't do the things they get some of your company's money or occasionally can lock you in a box.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        By "we" I mean those of us who have no direct power, but work to convince those with power to pass the laws. The legislature isn't going to do it without that
  - TheGlav 3y ago
    We did start somewhere. We started with "we are allowed to do with our own property whatever we want." this law codified removal of those rights.
    - lallysingh 3y ago
      Please explain
    - justapassenger 3y ago
      Did you read the article or the law? This law requires manufacturers to provide parts, tools and documentation for how to repair their products. It didn't change anything about rights of people to do whatever they want with their property.
- willio58 3y ago
  I feel like they had to exempt those ones to avoid the lobbyists. I think this is a good first step. First, it applies to all new industries that pop up. Also, I think it will be good to collect evidence that right to repair benefits consumers and the environment. That might provide the footing the state would need to fight for right for repair for those specific products
  - TheGlav 3y ago
    Agricultural product producers are one of the biggest offenders when it comes to "right to repair". There's no reason why farmers shouldn't be able to fix their own equipment. These companies make it so farmers can't fix their tractors, they have to go to a dealership. Farmers that, for over a hundred years, have been doing repairs on their own in the field (literally) to get their tractor working again so harvest finishes, still aren't allowed to fix their own equipment. It's not a "reasonable" exemption when there is decades of precedence. Adding a computer to these things should not stop someone from doing this work, and there's no reasonable explanation why someone shouldn't be able to repair something they've had the rights to repair for decades.
    - shagie 3y ago
      Agricultural equipment falls into industrial equipment which has different liability concerns for the manufacturer. If you modify a Ford truck and that modification kills you, you're liable. If you modify a John Deer tractor and John Deer didn't do everything in their power to stop you from making an unsafe modification, they're liable. Furthermore, if a farm worker gets killed, maimed, injured from the framer's modification, the farmer is immune from liability and it is still John Deer that would be liable. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/workers-compensation-for-agricultural-workers/ https://nationalaglawcenter.org/workers-compensation-for-agr... > Whether or not someone is eligible for workers’ compensation depends on their state and the industry they work in. There are no requirements at the federal level that mandate states to have workers’ compensation laws. Nevertheless, every state, except for Texas, requires most employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance. However, the majority of state workers’ compensation laws specifically exclude or limit agricultural employers from the workers’ compensation requirement.
- garba_dlm 3y ago
  what if we take earth to be flat but "flat" in the sense of 'euclid-ness' like in a Manifold[1] ? or maybe we gotta work on accepting that it may be possible for two completely different, even opposing theories, to explain similar things? (in completely different ways?) it's just that one is easier (for some use cases) than the other one, and to fight over which is right is all wrong. I think that in the future the whole debate will be understood as an instance of the blind men and the elephant[2] but we just don't have the mathematics (nor the philosophy...) for this. either it's not invented or it hasn't managed to become widespread [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant yes, that's right, I just tried to apologize for flat earth. your cue to downvote me away from sight. maybe I just want to make bridges... impossible bridges... between suckers lagging but still trying to understand and others who refuse or are unable to explain
- judge2020 3y ago
  Exempting game consoles is funny, because it proves the question is "How much money can a company make from their products?" Because we know that consoles are typically sold at a loss or barely break-even point, at least at launch (and some for their entire lifetime - like with Xbox[1]), with their cut of digital & physical sales funding the continued R&D of the consoles. The only difference with iPhones is that Apple both makes money up-front on the hardware and on the backend with app/game sales. If Apple were to cut the price of the iPhone, or fill it with diamonds (or an actually-valuable rare material like Tungsten) to bring the COGS up to the MSRP, would the EU and Cali suddenly bow to Apple and let them off the hook on being a gatekeeper/anti-R2R practices? 0: https://www.thegamer.com/standard-ps5-break-even-profit-june/ https://www.thegamer.com/standard-ps5-break-even-profit-june... 1: https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/322561-microsoft-says-it-has-never-made-a-profit-on-xbox-hardware-sales https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/322561-microsoft-says-it-...
  - GabeIsko 3y ago
    I think legistlators would make the case that while general purpose computing devices should have right to repair laws, game consoles are machines dedicated to frivolous entertainment and that consumers shouldn't mess with them. It's very silly, but I think it does present activists a schism to exploit. Apple believes that it's phones are a closed ecosystem that they have the sole right to distirbute software and, until recently, provide hardware repairs for. But legislators clearly understand that smart-phones serve an important societal function. Thus they should be subject to right to repair. They will come around eventually on electronic entertainment, There is tons of politcal pressure around farming equipment, and consumer alarm systems (think ring) are due for a whole heap of government regulation.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  If this legislation somehow turns out to be a mistake would you rather it affect everything everywhere or be scoped in this way?
- GabeIsko 3y ago
  Lol, these exemptions are pretty hilarious. I can get the logic of regulations that prevent tampering with alarm systems for safety reasons, or potentially dangerous heavy machinery like that found in agricultural equipment. Carving them out of right to repair is super silly. Still a net win for right to repair. On the game side, everyone is just going to play on a steam deck in the future anyway.
  - diggan 3y ago
    Sadly, agriculture is a large part of the "right to repair" movement and one of the groups that would benefit the most from it, as they've been repairing their own equipment for a long time and John Deere et al have been closing down as much as they can so people can't repair their own stuff. And that's the group of people make it possible for us to stuff down all this food we're consuming, and somehow lawmakers find it OK to not give them more rights...
    - GabeIsko 3y ago
      Oh yes, I definitely agree, and I support the rights of farmers to repair the equipment they use. The carve out for agricultural equipment is clearly a concession to John Deere lobbying. John Deere sees value in IoT data gathered from its equipment to do all sorts of predictive analysis. That very much undercuts the basis of American food production, which relies on government subsidies for a variety of reasons. I ultimately believe that this value is derived by front running American farming subsidies, a complex form of insider trading. An existential crises is brewing in American farming that repairing tractors is on the forefront of. However, fixing a combine harvester is definitely a different prospect to modifying your game console or cell phone. We can acknowledge that. I still think that farmers are capable of repairing and modifying the equipment they depend on to make a living and provide all of us with food. But there definitely needs to be some form of safety regulation.
- matrix_overload 3y ago
  If you are new to the third-world politics, I'll give you a 101: you "donate" enough cache to the ruling party - you get your business exempted from regulations, you don't - you get squashed. All you can see in this case is who paid and who didn't.
  - sneak 3y ago
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=F9cO3-MLHOM https://youtube.com/watch?v=F9cO3-MLHOM
- gnopgnip 3y ago
  Perfect is the enemy of good. This right to repair law still covers ~97% of the economy.
- bbor 3y ago
  The best defense is: Politics is not a game of morals, virtues, or arguments, but a game of power, manipulation, and maneuvers. In that context, I think we can agree this is a win :) It'll be easier to override that clause down the line than it was to pass this bill.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  No, we are not there yet, but we're part-way there. Some people just look for the negative aspect of everything rather than admit that a step might represent progress toward a goal.
- nix0n 3y ago
  By the time this takes effect, all large cars will be classified as farm equipment and all small cars will be classified as game consoles.
- nsxwolf 3y ago
  How did Sony and Microsoft avoid this fate and Apple didn’t?
- derefr 3y ago
  The alarm systems, I kind of understand, insofar as there are 1. security certifications depending on these being present and functioning, and nobody's going to certify equipment with arbitrary third-party repairs; and 2. these devices always work only with some kind of subscription paid to a security company anyway, since the point of them is to send some signal to said company to get something to happen.
  - szundi 3y ago
    Yes alarm systems are connected to fear of insurance fraud. Although! Right to repair does not forbid insurance companies to forbid it. But can I please repair my home alarm system, thanks.
    - derefr 3y ago
      The problem is that it's basically impossible to tell when an alarm system has been working all along, vs. failed and was then repaired by a third party — including flashing it with subtly different third-party firmware found online somewhere — and now is "working" again with no visible change to behavior (but where it'll now help you commit insurance fraud.) As such, there's no way for the insurance companies to make such a forbidding rule, and have it be enforceable. There are no "inspectors" or "auditors" that can be sent to look at your alarm system who could possibly notice that it's been "repaired" in this manner. Pretty much the only (industry-wide) thing that can be done to curb such repair attempts, is to outlaw the tools (like reverse-engineered third-party firmware) required to do so. (Of course, any given alarm device maker could do what Apple has done with iPhones, and just make all major components of the devices proprietary, and have all components do signing handshakes before talking to each-other, where they reject each-other unless they've both been mutually first-party signed and activated. This would put high logistical barriers in the way of repairing the device — you'd have to get your hands on first-party parts, that the OEM won't sell you. But there's no system-level incentive that either the state or the insurance companies are in position to create, that would get them to do that.)
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  So let me get this straight. I can now claim right to repair for all my cars, computer, phones, tvs, furnaces, smart meters, water heaters, smart bulbs, lamps, tablets, laptops, smart speakers, speakers in general, microwaves, gym equipment, and lawnmowers (not agricultural or forestry!). I call that a win. Sorry we didn't catch em all yet.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 3y ago
  I bet you haven't heard all the arguments. Here's one that came to mind when I read the actual text of the repair law as to why there might be two of those three exceptions. For agricultural and forestry equipment there is already extensive California law dealing with them in the the California Business and Professional Code (BPC). To wit, the "Fair Practices of Equipment Manufacturers, Distributors, Wholesalers, and Dealers Act" which is Chapter 28 of Division 8 ("Special Business Regulations") of the BPC. Alarm systems are also regulated under the BPC. This new "Right to Repair Act" is part of the Public Resources Code. It is is Division 30, Part 3, Chapter 8.6. Division 30 is "Waste Management". Part 3 is "State Programs". Chapter 8.6 was the "Cell Phone Recycling Act of 2004" so presumably is getting renumbered to 8.7, and the "Right to Repair Act" is being inserted right before that, after the "Rechargeable Battery Recycling Act of 2006" (Chapter 8.4) and a chapter called "Electronic Waste Recycling" (Chapter 8.5). (Why is this done as waste management under the Public Resources Code rather than under whatever California's consumer protection code is called? I have no idea!) It seems at least plausible that the exceptions other than the video game console exception are there because legislators feel that changes to how those things are handled should be done separately via changes to the BPC.
timeimp 3y ago
Parts pairing is still a thing. I would love to see right-to-repair advocates and infosec advocates in a ring, fighting it out. Why is it that consumers get salty because they can’t read what they’re actually buying?
- freedomben 3y ago
  As a rare simultaneous right-to-repair and infosec advocate, it kills me that people think these must be opposite in nature. This is only true when you consider the user to be a threat vector. Big tech certainly does though, and there's a huge financial incentive to treat the user that way. Apple has also proven that the user-mistrust model works great for the company, and people will buy the products anyway. It's a sad state
  - warkdarrior 3y ago
    As an infosec person, I'd love to sell replacement screens that also exfiltrate your data.
    - sennight 3y ago
      I would also love for you to bring to market a price competitive replacement screen that is somehow backdoored. I don't know why you think that would be profitable at all, but I welcome the price pressure.
      - mvid 3y ago
        If you are backdooring the hardware, then the idea would be that the data would be worth it to you. Seems like it would make it easier to compete on price, since the value dynamic is skewed
        sennight 3y ago
        You think it would be profitable to source a spec similar screen, market it, backdoor it, exfiltrate in a detection evasive manner what started out as a 3.5MB wide data stream... and build out the infrastructure to receive hundreds of thousands of backchannel connections? Really?
user3939382 3y ago
When John Deere is not exempted from a bill like this I will award the government with 1% trust that it’s not totally corrupt. Currently at 0% trust.
- test77777 3y ago
  [dead]
WirelessGigabit 3y ago
With the exemption of alarm systems (why?) what's stopping Apple from classifying their new models as an alarm system? After all, it has crash detection and can call 911 automatically.
- beretguy 3y ago
  Or a game console, for that matter…
  - WirelessGigabit 3y ago
    Good point. While an iPhone is a phone, the actual calling is probably one of the least used features. So is it a phone with gaming capabilities? Or a gaming console with phone capabilities? Reminds me of the Nokia N-Gage.
- baby_souffle 3y ago
  > With the exemption of alarm systems (why?) Probably a "security" reason. If $anybody can get access to tools we use at the factory, bad guys can circumvent the alarm. I'd imagine that it's pretty similar for game-consoles: literally _any_ tooling/docs that allow $hackers or $pirates to gain any foothold threatens our business model... I don't think either of those are particularly _good_ arguments, but I'd bet that they're very similar to whatever lobbies were involved in crafting the legislation.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  > With the exemption of alarm systems (why?) I imagine it has to do with integrity of the system. If people start messing with it and leave some sensors unplugged and there's an incident, the first thing survivors are going to do is sue the manufacturer despite having tampered with it. I'm surprised to see airbags didn't make the list. Some things, amateurs really shouldn't mess with.
  - ang_cire 3y ago
    2R2 isn't (only) about amateurs, it's mainly about independent repair experts.
aiunboxed 3y ago
Apple will probably just price the individual parts high by claiming that their parts are of higher quality which will again deter customers to get their parts repaired.
- gnopgnip 3y ago
  They didn’t do that for the existing DIY repair system that is available today
nerdo 3y ago
What's the enforcement? Companies all ignore the CCPA in my experience.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Lots of discussion not even a month ago when this was news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37507226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37507226
- dang 3y ago
  Thanks! Macroexpanded: Calif. passes strongest right-to-repair bill yet, requiring 7 years of parts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37507226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37507226 - Sept 2023 (280 comments) Lots more at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=comments%3E0%20repair%20calif&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Eumenes 3y ago
Gavin Newsom is the king of fluffy feel good bills whilst insuring his favorite lobbyists and industry allies get their carved out exemptions. This dude has to be one of the slimiest politicians in the western world.
- test77777 3y ago
  [dead]
- xnx 3y ago
  As currently structured (largely due to the voting system and campaign finance laws), being a politician is a constant struggle between pure ideals and practical accomplishment. There are short term and long term trade offs for both categories.
- clarge1120 3y ago
  It's all about getting paid by both sides in a dispute.
  - forward-slashed 3y ago
    Hey! I noticed you in a comment about cold calling. I have been doing something similar (near 100 in the past month), and am at a dilemma regarding how to approach it. I am curious if you are still cold calling. You can also email me @ joshho@stanford.edu
linuxftw 3y ago
The bill linked in the article does very little to describe what has changed in regards to 'right to repair.' I'm wondering if they linked the wrong bill.
balozi 3y ago
This is the sort of bill you get when you trap politicians between activists with a cause and lobbyist with money.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
smashah 3y ago
Right to repair should include right to mod (software) which also then necessitates right to reverse engineer
- altruios 3y ago
  If they are in your machine, they are your bits: you should be able to modify them as you see fit.
enahs-sf 3y ago
So does this mean 3rd party tesla repair shops finally?
- sneak 3y ago
  Nope! Autos are implicitly carved out too; this applies to electronic products and appliances only.
  - laweijfmvo 3y ago
    except game consoles!
    - xnx 3y ago
      and a Tesla is both!
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
olliej 3y ago
Oh look, we once again have this absurd "game console" carveout. When someone can explain what makes game consoles different from any other computer, please let me know.
- ang_cire 3y ago
  Nintendo has done a lot of litigation to claim that game console alterations (modding, but also by definition repairs) enables circumvention of their DRM. Most computers don't try to lock out their owners from administrative access, but video game consoles usually do. Which is b.s., but I guarantee that's why they got the exemption.
zackmorris 3y ago
I wish there was a way to quantify planned obsolescence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence For example, my monitors appear to be hollow inside, so that a bit of dust got in and caused one of them to get a bad pixel. For so many years, smartphones weren't waterproof. Most of the power tools I own seem to use plastic for the most-used parts like the on/off trigger. Batteries can't be easily accessed or replaced. Etc etc etc. If we were to count these design decisions as booleans in a measure of good engineering, then even one profit-seeking misstep could result in a 50% reduction in repair score. I feel that most products in existence would score perhaps 4/16 or 25%, maybe lower (edit: could be as low 15/65535 = 2.29e-4 depending on the weight of the bits!). Everything from cars where the alternator or fuel pump are buried under the engine, to smartphones that can't be easily opened or have their SIM card swapped, to appliances that don't have a low-voltage cutoff to survive a brownout. So I wonder if this act touches on any of that. If not, it would be great to codify these things into standards, sort of like Consumer Reports but more formal, with the goal of promoting and eventually achieving decommodification.
quietthrow 3y ago
Genuine question: (tad bit lazy too) so how will this law affect individual who have Apple products? - moving forward (after a certain date) I will be able buy and install a battery in phone /laptop. Upgrade the ram/hdd/ssd etc ? Or something different? Bonus: same eli5 for yesterdays delete act

198 points by 1970-01-01 3y ago

jchw 3y ago

> Exemptions: game consoles, alarm systems, agricultural and forestry equipment So basically, you have the right to repair things as long as it's not a John Deere, an Xbox, or an alarm system. Those things are magical in nature and we must not anger the gods of their making. I can't take anyone seriously who defends these things. I don't need a devil's advocate for what it's worth; I've heard the arguments, and I'm about as convinced about them as I am the case for a flat Earth.

candiddevmike 3y ago
Clearly they don't want you to release the magic smoke Does documentation mean how to replace the operating system/firmware and any necessary signing keys?
imbusy111 3y ago
The agricultural exemption really sucks, but the force was probably too strong. We'll get John Deere next time.
dghughes 3y ago
>Exemptions: game consoles, alarm systems, agricultural and forestry equipment I don't understand how people seem to think their food just appears out of thin air. Farming is a 24/7 job and is hard on equipment. Repairing farm equipment is at least 50% of the job. Games consoles, alarm systems, or trees don't feed anyone. Maybe if farmers go on strike now of all times the fall which is harvest time and let the food rot. Let's see how long people can go without or with reduced availability of food. "Oh no my tractor broke down and I can't repair it"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- awesomeMilou 3y ago
  I agree. I'm honestly surprised by how much shit US farmers are willing to take from John Deere. Not to make this political, but you'd expect a group that largely votes Republican to be a bit more radical and unfair in fighting an unethical company.
  - digging 3y ago
    They're probably tired, scared, and unorganized. John Deere's bullshit only makes them more scared and unorganized, and not less tired. I'm sure they're not taking this shit because they're ok with it, but farmers have to take a lot of shit from a lot of powerful organizations to get by.
    - jimnotgym 3y ago
      > unorganized If they are anything like British farmers they would rather get shafted by John Deere than work together with their neighbours.
  - colpabar 3y ago
    Well, if/when they ever do fight back, they will immediately be labelled right wing nutjobs by the mainstream media and no one will care about who/what they're fighting against, and you'll see lots of "well, I usually support right to repair, but those trump hats were really scary and john deere's position is actually kind of reasonable" comments here.
- 6510 3y ago
  I think if we've learned anything during corona it should be that there are different tiers of economic activity. 4) that what we absolutely need, 3) that what would be nice to have, 2) that what serves no purpose/we would be better of without and 1) that what we've failed to ban. If we strictly define those we can then proceed to rate those who consume our attention and those tasked with governing by the ratio of time they spend on each. No doubt we are all guilty pondering niceties rather than necessities. Imagine an idea for a startup that is necessary.
segmondy 3y ago
You have to start somewhere. I rather the right to repair cover 90% of things than 0% of things. We can eventually fight for right to repair the rest.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Agreed. As much as I hate that John Deere escaped this one, we can regroup now and will have a getter position of bargaining since it's only "expanding" an existing law rather than creating a new one from scratch.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    We can regroup? The people who write these laws have all the power already. They just have to write things down and if you don't do the things they get some of your company's money or occasionally can lock you in a box.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      By "we" I mean those of us who have no direct power, but work to convince those with power to pass the laws. The legislature isn't going to do it without that
- TheGlav 3y ago
  We did start somewhere. We started with "we are allowed to do with our own property whatever we want." this law codified removal of those rights.
  - lallysingh 3y ago
    Please explain
  - justapassenger 3y ago
    Did you read the article or the law? This law requires manufacturers to provide parts, tools and documentation for how to repair their products. It didn't change anything about rights of people to do whatever they want with their property.
willio58 3y ago
I feel like they had to exempt those ones to avoid the lobbyists. I think this is a good first step. First, it applies to all new industries that pop up. Also, I think it will be good to collect evidence that right to repair benefits consumers and the environment. That might provide the footing the state would need to fight for right for repair for those specific products
- TheGlav 3y ago
  Agricultural product producers are one of the biggest offenders when it comes to "right to repair". There's no reason why farmers shouldn't be able to fix their own equipment. These companies make it so farmers can't fix their tractors, they have to go to a dealership. Farmers that, for over a hundred years, have been doing repairs on their own in the field (literally) to get their tractor working again so harvest finishes, still aren't allowed to fix their own equipment. It's not a "reasonable" exemption when there is decades of precedence. Adding a computer to these things should not stop someone from doing this work, and there's no reasonable explanation why someone shouldn't be able to repair something they've had the rights to repair for decades.
  - shagie 3y ago
    Agricultural equipment falls into industrial equipment which has different liability concerns for the manufacturer. If you modify a Ford truck and that modification kills you, you're liable. If you modify a John Deer tractor and John Deer didn't do everything in their power to stop you from making an unsafe modification, they're liable. Furthermore, if a farm worker gets killed, maimed, injured from the framer's modification, the farmer is immune from liability and it is still John Deer that would be liable. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/workers-compensation-for-agricultural-workers/ https://nationalaglawcenter.org/workers-compensation-for-agr... > Whether or not someone is eligible for workers’ compensation depends on their state and the industry they work in. There are no requirements at the federal level that mandate states to have workers’ compensation laws. Nevertheless, every state, except for Texas, requires most employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance. However, the majority of state workers’ compensation laws specifically exclude or limit agricultural employers from the workers’ compensation requirement.
garba_dlm 3y ago
what if we take earth to be flat but "flat" in the sense of 'euclid-ness' like in a Manifold[1] ? or maybe we gotta work on accepting that it may be possible for two completely different, even opposing theories, to explain similar things? (in completely different ways?) it's just that one is easier (for some use cases) than the other one, and to fight over which is right is all wrong. I think that in the future the whole debate will be understood as an instance of the blind men and the elephant[2] but we just don't have the mathematics (nor the philosophy...) for this. either it's not invented or it hasn't managed to become widespread [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant yes, that's right, I just tried to apologize for flat earth. your cue to downvote me away from sight. maybe I just want to make bridges... impossible bridges... between suckers lagging but still trying to understand and others who refuse or are unable to explain
judge2020 3y ago
Exempting game consoles is funny, because it proves the question is "How much money can a company make from their products?" Because we know that consoles are typically sold at a loss or barely break-even point, at least at launch (and some for their entire lifetime - like with Xbox[1]), with their cut of digital & physical sales funding the continued R&D of the consoles. The only difference with iPhones is that Apple both makes money up-front on the hardware and on the backend with app/game sales. If Apple were to cut the price of the iPhone, or fill it with diamonds (or an actually-valuable rare material like Tungsten) to bring the COGS up to the MSRP, would the EU and Cali suddenly bow to Apple and let them off the hook on being a gatekeeper/anti-R2R practices? 0: https://www.thegamer.com/standard-ps5-break-even-profit-june/ https://www.thegamer.com/standard-ps5-break-even-profit-june... 1: https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/322561-microsoft-says-it-has-never-made-a-profit-on-xbox-hardware-sales https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/322561-microsoft-says-it-...
- GabeIsko 3y ago
  I think legistlators would make the case that while general purpose computing devices should have right to repair laws, game consoles are machines dedicated to frivolous entertainment and that consumers shouldn't mess with them. It's very silly, but I think it does present activists a schism to exploit. Apple believes that it's phones are a closed ecosystem that they have the sole right to distirbute software and, until recently, provide hardware repairs for. But legislators clearly understand that smart-phones serve an important societal function. Thus they should be subject to right to repair. They will come around eventually on electronic entertainment, There is tons of politcal pressure around farming equipment, and consumer alarm systems (think ring) are due for a whole heap of government regulation.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
If this legislation somehow turns out to be a mistake would you rather it affect everything everywhere or be scoped in this way?
GabeIsko 3y ago
Lol, these exemptions are pretty hilarious. I can get the logic of regulations that prevent tampering with alarm systems for safety reasons, or potentially dangerous heavy machinery like that found in agricultural equipment. Carving them out of right to repair is super silly. Still a net win for right to repair. On the game side, everyone is just going to play on a steam deck in the future anyway.
- diggan 3y ago
  Sadly, agriculture is a large part of the "right to repair" movement and one of the groups that would benefit the most from it, as they've been repairing their own equipment for a long time and John Deere et al have been closing down as much as they can so people can't repair their own stuff. And that's the group of people make it possible for us to stuff down all this food we're consuming, and somehow lawmakers find it OK to not give them more rights...
  - GabeIsko 3y ago
    Oh yes, I definitely agree, and I support the rights of farmers to repair the equipment they use. The carve out for agricultural equipment is clearly a concession to John Deere lobbying. John Deere sees value in IoT data gathered from its equipment to do all sorts of predictive analysis. That very much undercuts the basis of American food production, which relies on government subsidies for a variety of reasons. I ultimately believe that this value is derived by front running American farming subsidies, a complex form of insider trading. An existential crises is brewing in American farming that repairing tractors is on the forefront of. However, fixing a combine harvester is definitely a different prospect to modifying your game console or cell phone. We can acknowledge that. I still think that farmers are capable of repairing and modifying the equipment they depend on to make a living and provide all of us with food. But there definitely needs to be some form of safety regulation.
matrix_overload 3y ago
If you are new to the third-world politics, I'll give you a 101: you "donate" enough cache to the ruling party - you get your business exempted from regulations, you don't - you get squashed. All you can see in this case is who paid and who didn't.
- sneak 3y ago
  https://youtube.com/watch?v=F9cO3-MLHOM https://youtube.com/watch?v=F9cO3-MLHOM
gnopgnip 3y ago
Perfect is the enemy of good. This right to repair law still covers ~97% of the economy.
bbor 3y ago
The best defense is: Politics is not a game of morals, virtues, or arguments, but a game of power, manipulation, and maneuvers. In that context, I think we can agree this is a win :) It'll be easier to override that clause down the line than it was to pass this bill.
anigbrowl 3y ago
No, we are not there yet, but we're part-way there. Some people just look for the negative aspect of everything rather than admit that a step might represent progress toward a goal.
nix0n 3y ago
By the time this takes effect, all large cars will be classified as farm equipment and all small cars will be classified as game consoles.
nsxwolf 3y ago
How did Sony and Microsoft avoid this fate and Apple didn’t?
derefr 3y ago
The alarm systems, I kind of understand, insofar as there are 1. security certifications depending on these being present and functioning, and nobody's going to certify equipment with arbitrary third-party repairs; and 2. these devices always work only with some kind of subscription paid to a security company anyway, since the point of them is to send some signal to said company to get something to happen.
- szundi 3y ago
  Yes alarm systems are connected to fear of insurance fraud. Although! Right to repair does not forbid insurance companies to forbid it. But can I please repair my home alarm system, thanks.
  - derefr 3y ago
    The problem is that it's basically impossible to tell when an alarm system has been working all along, vs. failed and was then repaired by a third party — including flashing it with subtly different third-party firmware found online somewhere — and now is "working" again with no visible change to behavior (but where it'll now help you commit insurance fraud.) As such, there's no way for the insurance companies to make such a forbidding rule, and have it be enforceable. There are no "inspectors" or "auditors" that can be sent to look at your alarm system who could possibly notice that it's been "repaired" in this manner. Pretty much the only (industry-wide) thing that can be done to curb such repair attempts, is to outlaw the tools (like reverse-engineered third-party firmware) required to do so. (Of course, any given alarm device maker could do what Apple has done with iPhones, and just make all major components of the devices proprietary, and have all components do signing handshakes before talking to each-other, where they reject each-other unless they've both been mutually first-party signed and activated. This would put high logistical barriers in the way of repairing the device — you'd have to get your hands on first-party parts, that the OEM won't sell you. But there's no system-level incentive that either the state or the insurance companies are in position to create, that would get them to do that.)
jvanderbot 3y ago
So let me get this straight. I can now claim right to repair for all my cars, computer, phones, tvs, furnaces, smart meters, water heaters, smart bulbs, lamps, tablets, laptops, smart speakers, speakers in general, microwaves, gym equipment, and lawnmowers (not agricultural or forestry!). I call that a win. Sorry we didn't catch em all yet.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tzs 3y ago
I bet you haven't heard all the arguments. Here's one that came to mind when I read the actual text of the repair law as to why there might be two of those three exceptions. For agricultural and forestry equipment there is already extensive California law dealing with them in the the California Business and Professional Code (BPC). To wit, the "Fair Practices of Equipment Manufacturers, Distributors, Wholesalers, and Dealers Act" which is Chapter 28 of Division 8 ("Special Business Regulations") of the BPC. Alarm systems are also regulated under the BPC. This new "Right to Repair Act" is part of the Public Resources Code. It is is Division 30, Part 3, Chapter 8.6. Division 30 is "Waste Management". Part 3 is "State Programs". Chapter 8.6 was the "Cell Phone Recycling Act of 2004" so presumably is getting renumbered to 8.7, and the "Right to Repair Act" is being inserted right before that, after the "Rechargeable Battery Recycling Act of 2006" (Chapter 8.4) and a chapter called "Electronic Waste Recycling" (Chapter 8.5). (Why is this done as waste management under the Public Resources Code rather than under whatever California's consumer protection code is called? I have no idea!) It seems at least plausible that the exceptions other than the video game console exception are there because legislators feel that changes to how those things are handled should be done separately via changes to the BPC.

timeimp 3y ago

Parts pairing is still a thing. I would love to see right-to-repair advocates and infosec advocates in a ring, fighting it out. Why is it that consumers get salty because they can’t read what they’re actually buying?

freedomben 3y ago
As a rare simultaneous right-to-repair and infosec advocate, it kills me that people think these must be opposite in nature. This is only true when you consider the user to be a threat vector. Big tech certainly does though, and there's a huge financial incentive to treat the user that way. Apple has also proven that the user-mistrust model works great for the company, and people will buy the products anyway. It's a sad state
- warkdarrior 3y ago
  As an infosec person, I'd love to sell replacement screens that also exfiltrate your data.
  - sennight 3y ago
    I would also love for you to bring to market a price competitive replacement screen that is somehow backdoored. I don't know why you think that would be profitable at all, but I welcome the price pressure.
    - mvid 3y ago
      If you are backdooring the hardware, then the idea would be that the data would be worth it to you. Seems like it would make it easier to compete on price, since the value dynamic is skewed
      - sennight 3y ago
        You think it would be profitable to source a spec similar screen, market it, backdoor it, exfiltrate in a detection evasive manner what started out as a 3.5MB wide data stream... and build out the infrastructure to receive hundreds of thousands of backchannel connections? Really?

user3939382 3y ago

When John Deere is not exempted from a bill like this I will award the government with 1% trust that it’s not totally corrupt. Currently at 0% trust.

test77777 3y ago
[dead]

WirelessGigabit 3y ago

With the exemption of alarm systems (why?) what's stopping Apple from classifying their new models as an alarm system? After all, it has crash detection and can call 911 automatically.

beretguy 3y ago
Or a game console, for that matter…
- WirelessGigabit 3y ago
  Good point. While an iPhone is a phone, the actual calling is probably one of the least used features. So is it a phone with gaming capabilities? Or a gaming console with phone capabilities? Reminds me of the Nokia N-Gage.
baby_souffle 3y ago
> With the exemption of alarm systems (why?) Probably a "security" reason. If $anybody can get access to tools we use at the factory, bad guys can circumvent the alarm. I'd imagine that it's pretty similar for game-consoles: literally _any_ tooling/docs that allow $hackers or $pirates to gain any foothold threatens our business model... I don't think either of those are particularly _good_ arguments, but I'd bet that they're very similar to whatever lobbies were involved in crafting the legislation.
jstarfish 3y ago
> With the exemption of alarm systems (why?) I imagine it has to do with integrity of the system. If people start messing with it and leave some sensors unplugged and there's an incident, the first thing survivors are going to do is sue the manufacturer despite having tampered with it. I'm surprised to see airbags didn't make the list. Some things, amateurs really shouldn't mess with.
- ang_cire 3y ago
  2R2 isn't (only) about amateurs, it's mainly about independent repair experts.

aiunboxed 3y ago

Apple will probably just price the individual parts high by claiming that their parts are of higher quality which will again deter customers to get their parts repaired.

gnopgnip 3y ago
They didn’t do that for the existing DIY repair system that is available today

nerdo 3y ago

What's the enforcement? Companies all ignore the CCPA in my experience.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Lots of discussion not even a month ago when this was news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37507226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37507226

dang 3y ago
Thanks! Macroexpanded: Calif. passes strongest right-to-repair bill yet, requiring 7 years of parts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37507226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37507226 - Sept 2023 (280 comments) Lots more at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=comments%3E0%20repair%20calif&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Eumenes 3y ago

Gavin Newsom is the king of fluffy feel good bills whilst insuring his favorite lobbyists and industry allies get their carved out exemptions. This dude has to be one of the slimiest politicians in the western world.

test77777 3y ago
[dead]
xnx 3y ago
As currently structured (largely due to the voting system and campaign finance laws), being a politician is a constant struggle between pure ideals and practical accomplishment. There are short term and long term trade offs for both categories.
clarge1120 3y ago
It's all about getting paid by both sides in a dispute.
- forward-slashed 3y ago
  Hey! I noticed you in a comment about cold calling. I have been doing something similar (near 100 in the past month), and am at a dilemma regarding how to approach it. I am curious if you are still cold calling. You can also email me @ joshho@stanford.edu

linuxftw 3y ago

The bill linked in the article does very little to describe what has changed in regards to 'right to repair.' I'm wondering if they linked the wrong bill.

balozi 3y ago

This is the sort of bill you get when you trap politicians between activists with a cause and lobbyist with money.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

smashah 3y ago

Right to repair should include right to mod (software) which also then necessitates right to reverse engineer

altruios 3y ago
If they are in your machine, they are your bits: you should be able to modify them as you see fit.

enahs-sf 3y ago

So does this mean 3rd party tesla repair shops finally?

sneak 3y ago
Nope! Autos are implicitly carved out too; this applies to electronic products and appliances only.
- laweijfmvo 3y ago
  except game consoles!
  - xnx 3y ago
    and a Tesla is both!
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

olliej 3y ago

Oh look, we once again have this absurd "game console" carveout. When someone can explain what makes game consoles different from any other computer, please let me know.

ang_cire 3y ago
Nintendo has done a lot of litigation to claim that game console alterations (modding, but also by definition repairs) enables circumvention of their DRM. Most computers don't try to lock out their owners from administrative access, but video game consoles usually do. Which is b.s., but I guarantee that's why they got the exemption.

zackmorris 3y ago

I wish there was a way to quantify planned obsolescence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence For example, my monitors appear to be hollow inside, so that a bit of dust got in and caused one of them to get a bad pixel. For so many years, smartphones weren't waterproof. Most of the power tools I own seem to use plastic for the most-used parts like the on/off trigger. Batteries can't be easily accessed or replaced. Etc etc etc. If we were to count these design decisions as booleans in a measure of good engineering, then even one profit-seeking misstep could result in a 50% reduction in repair score. I feel that most products in existence would score perhaps 4/16 or 25%, maybe lower (edit: could be as low 15/65535 = 2.29e-4 depending on the weight of the bits!). Everything from cars where the alternator or fuel pump are buried under the engine, to smartphones that can't be easily opened or have their SIM card swapped, to appliances that don't have a low-voltage cutoff to survive a brownout. So I wonder if this act touches on any of that. If not, it would be great to codify these things into standards, sort of like Consumer Reports but more formal, with the goal of promoting and eventually achieving decommodification.

quietthrow 3y ago

Genuine question: (tad bit lazy too) so how will this law affect individual who have Apple products? - moving forward (after a certain date) I will be able buy and install a battery in phone /laptop. Upgrade the ram/hdd/ssd etc ? Or something different? Bonus: same eli5 for yesterdays delete act