293
EU: Smartphones Must Have User-Replaceable Batteries by 2027
(www.pcmag.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
293 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37804 readers
406 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They need to hit the final nail on the head. All smart phones sold in Europe must have fully documented and open source hardware including the entire chipset, all peripherals, and the modem, with all registers and interfaces documented, the full API, and all programing documentation along with a public toolchain that can reproduce the software as shipped with the device and updated with any changes made to future iterations as soon as the updated software is made available.
This law would make these devices lifetime devices, if you choose; as in your lifetime. It would murder the disposable hardware culture, and it should happen now. Moore's law is dead. The race is over.
At least we can start with unlockable bootloader. Or at least, the second you're discontinuing OS updates, you must give a bootloader unlocking tool + kernel sources. Including apple, shame that a device like an iPhone X is "e-waste" now that won't receive updates
I doubt manufacturers would want to put millions upon millions into research and development if they'd have to open source it all anyways.
They want to sell to every large market and will do what they are required to do in order to access this market. All of these companies have the ability to completely reverse engineer any competing hardware. There are no secrets. Proprietary is not about protecting business or IP. It only exists to exploit the end user. All of these tools and documentation already exist. In the past they were public. The only reason they are not public now is because corporations realized the can get away with it. Capitalism ruins everything you allow it to touch. The only way to stop it is by force. Corporations are the worthless sludge of humanity. You are what matters, not them. They have no rights.
Governments already have requirements like this for military and government hardware. All it takes is altering a few lines to existing requirements. Ultimately, you should expect more from both the manufacturer and the government. This is about ownership. You either buy what you pay for or you rent it. Anyone selling you anything should have no further ownership of any kind, digital rights included. Anything less is theft. This blind spot is leading to digital feudalism and it is criminal. Don't allow anyone to steal from you. This is a fundamental human right.
I briefly worked in safety critical software, so adjacent to defence and aeronautical in the UK. I recall that when the UK was asking for the source code for windows running on the trident subs at the time (which is terrifying thought at the best of times. A whole new meaning to blue screen of death) that UK gov had asked to inspect the source code but was told to swivel. IIRC US and China were both allowed to look. That was all on the grapevine though, and I was still a kid so obv take with a pinch of salt, but I'm inclined to believe it.
I had more direct experience in my role validating software to run on military aircraft. We were contracted in to "prove" that the software was up to do-178b security stand and bug free via line by line inspection and some other techniques (which was a joy as you can imagine). I never got the impression that the source would be shared with the government, only that it had to meet the standard.
Interesting sidenote there, was that because it was for defence, being up to the standard was really marketing more than legal requirement. We'd find bugs that would trigger hard reboots of the hardware and the message was always "thanks for letting us know, but it's too expensive to get the original contractors back to fix it so we'll just ignore it". I think they'd have been legally obliged to do something for civilian aircraft but military is a different game.
(Again should emphasise these are vague memories from working a gap year before my masters, so take with pinch of salt.)