> « With access to proprietary guides and tools, hackers can more easily circumvent security protections, harming not only the product owner but also everyone who shares their network »

Of the many consumer insults present in this entire topic, this one really shows the ridiculousness of Apple’s position.

For that matter, if more altruistic people had access to these tools, couldn’t you argue that security bugs would be found quicker as well? As of right now, it’s possible that there are a million security bugs that black-hat hackers are sitting on that the average person doesn’t have the tools to know about.

Isn’t security-through-obscurity considered the worst kind of security?

Security-through-obscurity can be very effective by using it to throw up a smoke screen.

Case: you need to protect a web server. If you can successfully hide/spoof your OS/software fingerprint, an attacker won’t know whether your server has vulnerable software. This makes exploit selection extremely difficult.

You can protect an already secure system from 0-day or unknown exploits by hiding whether you’re running windows/linux/bsd/whatever with IIS/apache/nginx/traefik/caddy.

Of course this should not be used as an argument to introduce laws that limit the rights of repair shops, users or even security researchers.

Really? Software detection techniques are so sophisticated these days, you need to put a lot of effort into that, and it all can be defeated by something very simple that doesn’t even depend on you. Experts will find the way and newbies will just throw at you everything they have.

The way I read GP’s comment, is that security researchers have been able to find security vulnerabilities even without access to information.

That is true, but in this case Apple statement is ridiculous because if Apple relies on security by obscurity the problem is that the guides are shared with many employees and contractors and they arrive on the internet anyway.

> « When an electronic product breaks, consumers have a variety of repair options, including using an OEM’s [original equipment manufacturer] authorized repair network. »

Yeah, it’s called taxing users for the defects you engineered in the first place. Look at how ridiculous the glued keyboard fiasco was with Apple, which refused to admit any guilt in their design for several years and charged users several hundred bucks for official repairs if they did not subscribe any special warranty.

If there was a right to repair and Apple released three generations of bad laptops someone else could probably fix their mistake while they were still in the denial phase.

Ugh! As a former Apple fanboi, this is the reason I no longer own any Apple equipment. Apple products are beautiful, and very well designed, but so is a rhinestone straitjacket.

I’d also like to see a « right to install » bill that targets all major computing device platforms.

Nobody should be able to sell devices to millions of people without giving those customers the ability to install their own software. There should be no arbitrary limits such as « you have to plug your device into another device every 7 days just to keep your custom software installed ».

I agree and disagree. I think people should have the absolute right to repair and modify their devices, with or without an existing warranty. However to support that activity while forcing companies to honor the warranty feels wrong. It’s like saying here, I screwed it up, now you fix it for free.

Why exactly should a vendor not be responsible for the quality of its product just because they weren’t hired to repair it?

Why should a vendor be responsible for any damages caused by unauthorized repairs using unknown methods and equipment?

1. Who is talking about unauthorized repairs? I am talking about repairs that are authorized, by the owner of the product, because who else would possibly have the authority to decide who is allowed to do something with a thing, such as repairing it, if not the owner of that thing?

2. Who says the vendor should be responsible for damages caused by repairs not done by the vendor? I was responding to someone who said that a repair not done by the vendor should void the warranty. Warranty only covers defects caused by the vendor, thus what they suggested was that vendors should not be liable for defects they themselves caused if someone else has repaired their product.

Warranties only cover manufacturing defects, not damage caused by independent repair. Voiding warranties for independent repair means that having such repair done to fix one problem voids the manufacturers responsibility for any unrelated defects.

The tradeoff here is between right to repair, and users having secure, trustworthy devices that will not spy on them. Put yourself in the shoes of an abused family member who lives with a hardware tinkerer who can pwn your device, unbeknownst to you, enabling further abuse (not talking about physical abuse necessarily here).

Just to take one slice of the population as an example, Apple has many gay and trans employees and no doubt users as well, so they are keenly aware of the problems these people can face whether while growing up, or afterwards.

As another example, take a look at the /r/atheism subreddit FAQ about coming out to your family, and read some of the horror stories there. People get disowned, kicked out of their parents homes, physically threatened, and even physically harmed in some cases, just for thinking for themselves.

As another example, in some cultures, honor killings are also a thing.

Users deserve to have their personal devices be secure, even from hostile family or household members.

On the other side is right to repair. I would love to see both sides be satisfied, but I do think the right to repair folks have been too militant in ignoring and dismissing the legitimate concerns Apple has about preserving user privacy.

Then there is the bogus line of argument that Apple is only against right to repair because they are heartless, greedy, profit fiends. But there are plenty of profit opportunities they have forgone, such as gathering personal data to exploit for ad networks, which argue otherwise. So I don’t buy it.

Sorry, but what do you want to say with your comment?
Changing a broken screen does not invalidate any chips on the motherboard afaik..

I think my comment is pretty clear.

Just to address your one cherry-picked hardware item:

>Changing a broken screen does not invalidate any chips on the motherboard afaik..

On some devices (those with fingerprint sensors) there are security implications.

The right to repair does not make the device less secure. Most vulnerabilities are exploitable via the lightning connection. And being able to change your battery or your screen will not magically legitimize « honor killings » or prevent atheists from being open.

OK it’s true there are also more issues at play.

Since you mention battery, that’s a big one. When Apple cannot control which batteries get swapped into their devices, their brand is at risk due to fires caused by bad batteries.

You can generalize this point to other components and quality in general. If people swap out third party parts, which some repair shops and end users will do to save money, the products end up looking bad and it damages Apple’s reputation, which is valuable to them.

This is really not a good argument.

If I swap the parts myself, I either get the new parts from apple themselves (in which case it IS their fault if something goes wrong or they can blame it on me for wrongly assembling it; e.g. « You were holding it wrong »)

If I go to a shop or a friend to get my phone repaired and they replace parts, this would be different. If the device malfunctions I would obviously blame the guy who last fiddled with it first. Look at car repair shops, household appliances etc…

In the case of batteries its even more simple. If its an apple battery, its obviously apples fault if the device catches fire. Because either the battery was bad or the manuals were. If the swap is so terribly difficult that many users will damage the phone while swapping batteries, it’s also apples fault, but they will (as usual) deny any claims so no harm done.

If it’s a third-party battery, I can’t see how the blame would fall to apple.

All in all, the reputation argument is on them. I don’t see how e.g. Ford can be blamed for a car where the independently repaired brakes didn’t work and caused an accident.

All your theories about blame being properly assigned go out the window when the news media gets ahold of any “Apple device caused a fire” story. You aren’t going to personally be there to correct the facts for every reader and viewer, nor do you have any incentive to be. So Apple’s brand gets put at risk.

>This is really not a good argument.

But it is, and your counterpoints do not hold up.

>When Apple cannot control which batteries get swapped into their devices, their brand is at risk due to fires caused by bad batteries.

I never seems this argument when you install after market car parts and install the parts yourself or your neighbor or some random car service, if you changed your lightbolb in the car and the engine breaks 1 month later you can’t void my engine warranty. When I install a cheap battery, the pone burns and I bring it to warranty then the warranty people can photo the phone, show the problem, show the faulty battery and I am at fault.

If you are concern that evil people are out to get Apple, those evil people have many other ways to do it, there is no good reason to screw 99,99% of your user because some random guy install a cheap battery and then puts a photo and rand on the internet, that does nothing, there was a need for thousands of people to complain about the keyboard issues before most(but not all) of Apple fans believed that Apple could make a mistake(so a few rants won’t have any effect).

It’s incredibly naive to think that when your house burns down and gets reported in the media, or your device bursts into flames in your luggage on a plane, all the media people sensationalizing the story and all the readers are going to get the key fact that you personally replaced the battery. Information gets distorted and the phone maker ends up looking bad.

This is not true,if it was true, some fan hater would hack an iPhone and made it to get on fire into an airplane or some other place. The evidence shows that we have many batteroes for MACc books catch fire or get inflated, keyboiards breaking, GPUs not working and if there is no class action lawsuit the blame is alwys set on the user that he is using it wrong.

Please show evidence for the contrary, one isolated incident and Apple got the blame and not the user when in fact the user was at fault.

The tradeoff here is between right to repair, and users having secure, trustworthy devices that will not spy on them.

I disagree. I suspect (but cannot prove right now) that right to repair would lead to devices becoming more secure, more trustworthy.

Nobody is forcing you to, but Apple is free to support the needs of all their users if they so choose.


Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *