[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Interesting bit (translated) :

> A practice contrary to the principle of the anti-waste law

> In France, serialization is theoretically prohibited, according to Alexandre Isaac. Since the entry into force of the anti-waste law in November 2021, the consumer code mentions that "any technique, including software, by which a marketer aims to make it impossible to repair or recondition a device or to limit the restoration of all the functionalities of such a device outside its approved circuits is prohibited”.

[netsharc]

Huh, I wonder if a lawyer could win the argument that printer companies who restrict 3rd-party cartridges violate this law...

Next on eBay: "Buy French ink for HP printers, use VPN to download the French drivers!".

"PC CHARGER LA LETTRE?! WTF does that mean?"

[jMyles]

Pourquoi ça indique "bourrage de papier", alors qu'il n'y a pas de bourrage?

[seszett]

There has already been a class action against HP[0] ending with a settlement and reimbursement of some customers, but that's not very conclusive.

It seems clear to me though that they violate this law, we just lack enforcement.

[0]https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/hardware/hp-will-pay-c...

[LeanderK]

I think it's possible and it would be a good thing. Although I wonder...I use a slightly older brother printer (prob. 4-5 years old) with 3rd-party cartridges without problems. Is it different with other printers?

[lostmsu]

So hypothetically if I get an app into iPhone app store, that is later removed by Apple for "duplicating functionality of the OS" (obviously, incomplete), would the inability to sideload the app from a web site be a violation of this law?

[throwaway290]

Any technique with makes it impossible to repair or recondition by definition also makes it more difficult to pwn. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35954422 for one example.

[realusername]

That isn't a repaired product but a fake one.

You can also buy fake iphones today which are near indistinguishable from the real thing unless you have a deep knowledge into the product, you can have a look on youtube.

Preventing repairs did not help them on that aspect.

[throwaway290]

> That isn't a repaired product but a fake one.

Wrong. It is a genuine piece of hardware but modified. With respect, did you read the linked article?

[realusername]

I did read the article, no it's not a genuine piece of hardware, they changed the microcontroller.

And by the way, it's also possible to do the same exact thing in an iPhone right now, somebody could totally hook up a microcontroller with a microphone straight to the battery.

If you want to go all the way, you can also replace the whole device straight with a fake iphone and record everything.

[throwaway290]

> I did read the article, no it's not a genuine piece of hardware, they changed the microcontroller.

They took the genuine piece and swapped some stuff out and modified firmware, not just made a straight up fake. That's why it was hard to detect, it was a completely genuine device on the face of it.

> And by the way, it's also possible to do the same exact thing in an iPhone right now, somebody could totally hook up a microcontroller with a microphone straight to the battery.

Yes. But that is tricky (not much free space in the body to add something new) and can probably be detected visually. However if somebody swapped an existing part like a camera for a fake camera that acts like a camera but also spies on you then it would be tricky to visually see, but the phone would warn you.

[realusername]

> They took the genuine piece and swapped some stuff out and modified firmware, not just made a straight up fake. That's why it was hard to detect, it was a completely genuine device on the face of it.

They could have also made a complete fake as well instead of a partial fake just by keeping the plastic enclosure, this device isn't exactly complicated.

> Yes. But that is tricky (not much free space in the body to add something new) and can probably be detected visually. However if somebody swapped an existing part like a camera for a fake camera that acts like a camera but also spies on you then it would be tricky to visually see, but the phone would warn you.

That's kind of a ridiculous threat model anyway, those targeted attacks are just going to hack the iPhone and stream the camera in software whenever they want with some custom payload.

[brookst]

By "did not help", you meant "did not completely 100% solve the problem", right? In the same way that seat belts do not help traffic fatalities because there are still traffic fatalities?

[realusername]

No, I meant that it did not solve any issue in this area at all, fake iPhone are as easily available as other fake brands. It's 0% affecting fake products which have their own separate supply chain anyways.

[brookst]

Again, the existence of X does not mean that all efforts to reduce the incidence of X were completely useless and therefore should not have been undertaken.

Binary thinking is full of such pitfalls.

[realusername]

Fake iphones don't and won't use any genuine parts. So locking said genuine parts achieves absolutely nothing against fakes, so yes that does means that if that's the goal, it's pointless.

It's not an "effort", it's misdirection.

[sgjohnson]

> Any technique with makes it impossible to repair or recondition by definition also makes it more difficult to pwn.

If you can touch it, you can pwn it. This is applicable to every piece of hardware ever existed, including the M2 Macs. Just because we don't have the (publicly available) tools (yet) doesn't mean that they can't be pwned.

More difficult? Yes. So difficult that currently thrown away Macs with Activation Lock on are solid e-waste? Yes. But don't expect it to stay so forever.

[throwaway290]

The whole point is to make it more difficult because there is rarely absolute security

[jayd16]

Huh? What about a glued battery in a rootable phone? How did the battery help?

[throwaway290]

What?

Sorry am going by the title, didn't read French.