4 ms·

If the machine is less than 2 years old (and you are in eruope) just return it as defect.

by tossandthrow 2y ago

ginko 2y ago
If OP is in Europe Google could be drawn and quartered for GDPR violations.
- hilbert42 2y ago
  Exactly!
- kleiba 2y ago
  "could" being the point here - as Joe Bloke, you're not going to get yourself into a legal dispute with Google, but it's not very hard to return an electronic device as an ordinary end consumer when it's still under warranty.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    You don't need to sue Google, just file a complaint with whatever the GDPR authority is in your country ...
    - zazazache 2y ago
      Better to just contact NOYB directly, they are responsible for about 50% of all GDPR fines to date. Outside of Norway the DPAs seem mostly useless, especially when it comes to big tech…
    - kleiba 2y ago
      I'd be interested to know if anyone on HN has actually done that in the past, and what the experience was?
      - robin_reala 2y ago
        Confiks managed to get Spotify to reinstate the API that allowed connections to SongShift with a GDPR complaint about the right to data portability (or threat thereof): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371
  - dgellow 2y ago
    Anyone can submit a complaint: https://www.edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-role-supervisor/complaints_en https://www.edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-role-supervis...
  - Matthyze 2y ago
    That's not how the GDPR works. Just like criminal procedure, subjects do not sue alleged offenders themselves. The state instead sues on their behalf.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  GPDR forbids local OCR? Can you be more specific
em-bee 2y ago
laws should be adapted to extend the warranty every time a remote change is made to the device. basically, the warranty should hold as long as the device is maintained. say, each update should come with half a year of warranty. it's a bit tricky as it could motivate companies to stop updating, but that could be solved with a separate law forcing companies to provide an extra number of years to provide updates. (if that doesn't exist already)
- ginko 2y ago
  Sounds like a good way to make sure that companies drop SW support as quickly as possible.
  - tossandthrow 2y ago
    Not if it as accompanied by laws about a lower bar for the functioning of software. Eg. regular sec patches etc. However, this would be a great way of separating hardware and software products - and would that be so bad?
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    They already do.
  - exe34 2y ago
    As long as they release all the source and build tools, I'm okay with that.
- haswell 2y ago
  I don’t think relying on new laws as the primary incentive is going to get far, especially when big tech has the outsized influence they do on government. This then just leaves a strong incentive to stop updating things.
- juergbi 2y ago
  This may make sense if the extended warranty is limited to defects introduced by the remote change. I.e., if they remotely break your device, they should be responsible for fixing the damage. A full warranty extension doesn't seem reasonable to me, though. With regards to your last sentence, I think a good first step would be to require at least security and other critical updates to be provided within the full warranty period. And this would make sense even without the (limited) warranty extension, and I actually consider it more important.

If the machine is less than 2 years old (and you are in eruope) just return it as defect.

ginko 2y ago

If OP is in Europe Google could be drawn and quartered for GDPR violations.

hilbert42 2y ago
Exactly!
kleiba 2y ago
"could" being the point here - as Joe Bloke, you're not going to get yourself into a legal dispute with Google, but it's not very hard to return an electronic device as an ordinary end consumer when it's still under warranty.
- nottorp 2y ago
  You don't need to sue Google, just file a complaint with whatever the GDPR authority is in your country ...
  - zazazache 2y ago
    Better to just contact NOYB directly, they are responsible for about 50% of all GDPR fines to date. Outside of Norway the DPAs seem mostly useless, especially when it comes to big tech…
  - kleiba 2y ago
    I'd be interested to know if anyone on HN has actually done that in the past, and what the experience was?
    - robin_reala 2y ago
      Confiks managed to get Spotify to reinstate the API that allowed connections to SongShift with a GDPR complaint about the right to data portability (or threat thereof): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371
- dgellow 2y ago
  Anyone can submit a complaint: https://www.edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-role-supervisor/complaints_en https://www.edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-role-supervis...
- Matthyze 2y ago
  That's not how the GDPR works. Just like criminal procedure, subjects do not sue alleged offenders themselves. The state instead sues on their behalf.
mardifoufs 2y ago
GPDR forbids local OCR? Can you be more specific

em-bee 2y ago

laws should be adapted to extend the warranty every time a remote change is made to the device. basically, the warranty should hold as long as the device is maintained. say, each update should come with half a year of warranty. it's a bit tricky as it could motivate companies to stop updating, but that could be solved with a separate law forcing companies to provide an extra number of years to provide updates. (if that doesn't exist already)

ginko 2y ago
Sounds like a good way to make sure that companies drop SW support as quickly as possible.
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  Not if it as accompanied by laws about a lower bar for the functioning of software. Eg. regular sec patches etc. However, this would be a great way of separating hardware and software products - and would that be so bad?
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  They already do.
- exe34 2y ago
  As long as they release all the source and build tools, I'm okay with that.
haswell 2y ago
I don’t think relying on new laws as the primary incentive is going to get far, especially when big tech has the outsized influence they do on government. This then just leaves a strong incentive to stop updating things.
juergbi 2y ago
This may make sense if the extended warranty is limited to defects introduced by the remote change. I.e., if they remotely break your device, they should be responsible for fixing the damage. A full warranty extension doesn't seem reasonable to me, though. With regards to your last sentence, I think a good first step would be to require at least security and other critical updates to be provided within the full warranty period. And this would make sense even without the (limited) warranty extension, and I actually consider it more important.