"It is our belief that the bill’s current language around parts pairing will undermine the security, safety, and privacy of Oregonians by forcing device manufacturers to allow the use of parts of unknown origin in consumer devices."

Key Points:

  • Apple opposed a right-to-repair bill in Oregon, despite previously supporting a weaker one in California.
  • The key difference is Oregon’s restriction on “parts pairing,” which locks repairs to Apple or authorized shops.
  • Apple argues this protects security and privacy, but critics say it creates a repair monopoly and e-waste.
  • Apple claims their system eases repair and maintain data security, while Google doesn’t have such a requirement
  • Apple refused suggestions to revise the bill
  • Cybersecurity experts argue parts pairing is unnecessary for security and hinders sustainable repair.
  • @whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    48•10 months ago

    Right to repair also has an environmental angle. Consider which one uses more resources and likely produces more pollution:

    • The RAM in your laptop dies, you take it to a repair shop, they swap out the dead RAM. Dead RAM goes in the bin, laptop has years of life left in it
    • The RAM in your Macbook dies, the RAM is soldered to the board, you throw the whole thing away and buy a new one, and when a single component in the new Macbook dies, lather, rinse, repeat

    Considering how much extra e-waste is generated when people can’t repair things, there’s really no way to buy Apple and call yourself an environmentalist.

    • bruhduhEnglish
      2•10 months ago

      Mother earth advertising beg to differ /s

    • @theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1•10 months ago

      I really hope neither Apple nor any other repair shop simply casts electronic components in the bin. My expectation in both cases is that the components are recycled, at least for precious metals.