[droopyEyelids]

Wish there was a way to do ensure the Right to Repair without throwing Apple's "Activation Lock" in the garbage.

Activation Lock greatly reduced the amount of thievery associated with Apple devices, and I think it's been a tremendous boon to -humanity- (how? by reducing the whole ecosystem of shit that grows around theft. Without Apple products, it's a less viable 'career' for the disadvantaged, and the scum who feed off them. It's like if half the grass in a field was inedible, it'd support a smaller population of buffalo or something. )

https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/11/iphone-thefts/

[daveloyall]

This is a specific instance of a more general question that Nebraska legislators are going to consider on Thursday: what pitfalls exist around the "right to repair" or even the "right to modify"?

Suppose a law is passed which forces my digital device manufacturer to allow me to install arbitrary firmware on my device. What could go wrong?

Well, it depends on how they implement it. If they remove signature verification during the firmware upgrade process, maybe some malicious person could change my firmware. I don't want that.

So, what they should do is give me the signing key. The design of the device doesn't need to change. We don't need to re-legalize "hacking" the digital lock. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention)

Nope, the manufacturer just needs to include a copy of each device's unique key in the box when they sell the phone.

Leave the rest to the consumer.

[prodmerc]

Oh please, Apple devices still get stolen left and right.

Being able to modify and fix your own hardware as you want is a boon to humanity.

[krzyk]

If Activation Lock prohibits right-to-repair and right-to-modify it should be removed.

I personally encounter more frequently state when I want to repair or modify my hardware then when I get is stolen.

More over petty thiefs don't distinguish between one phone or the other. If they do, they will more likely steal iPhone, if they are even more clever and know that it is hard to crack an iPhone, then it is such minority that you can ignore them almost altogether (and they are more likely to know how to really crack it - it is not impossible).

[daveloyall]

I'm not sure how Nebraska's LB67 would defeat Apple's remote-wipe-for-lost-phones feature. Would you elaborate?

[mustacheemperor]

I assume the poster is not referring to remote wipe, but the fact that it is literally impossible to crack into an iPhone associated to an Apple account you can't authenticate. If an iDevice is iCloud locked and you don't have that password, it's a brick.

[sqeaky]

It is not literally impossible, it is just beyond the grasp of petty thieves at the moment.

Wait until one guy releases a walkthrough on the the two pins you cross or the steps to remove some chip and add a new (or worst case blast some part of an SOC with a laser), then all the geek friends of those pretty criminals will take a stab at it.

Its not like the criminals themselves are doing much with phones and laptops they steal currently. They just sell them for pennies on the dollar to some shop that won't ask questions. The shop wipes the machines, resets keys or does whatever they will do. If the procedure is more involved the shop will pay less for iPhones to offset their costs, which could still deter thievery, but we can't expect it to always be "literally impossible".

[chadgeidel]

I think it's slightly more complicated than you make it out. The FBI presumably has the resources to create the "two pins you cross or steps to remove some chip" and yet it still has to ask Apple for device access on newer iPhones.

Either this ability exists, and the FBI is hiding it via creating large numbers of device requests of Apple, or Apple is telling us the truth and the iPhone is not easily hacked.

[sqeaky]

There is a difference between recovering encrypted data and making the phone usable for a second person. One cares about circumventing crypto and the other just wants to re-use a bunch of atoms.