Big tech companies don’t want users to fix assets they own; they want to expand and gain never-ending control by continually running a multi-pronged program of planned obsolescence. And in many places, the law is on their side.
But now a movement aimed at building a bulwark against the descent into servitude has recently been gaining valuable ground and momentum in the tech-rich Pacific Northwest.
This overarching problem of centralized power penetrating ever deeper into absolute ownership and control – that we are merely rentiers, and in fact slaves to the production of further technology – needs to be addressed in the strongest and most sensible terms possible.
In Oregon, lawmakers are joining the so-called “right to repair” movement, a name that refers to the straightforward, American idea that we should be able to repair, remodel, enhance, or do whatever we want with the property we own. Right to repair advocates want to force manufacturers of everyday products and electronics to provide the tools and technical know-how needed to maintain, troubleshoot, and repair their products. So far, five states have enacted laws similar to Oregon’s new law.
As we often see in daily life, the gradual obsolescence of consumer products is planned well in advance, as buyers are forced to comply in unforeseeable ways. Who hasn’t noticed that printer cartridges (paid for over a few months with moderate use) quickly cost more than the printer itself? Of course, not by chance. Or, think back to the first time you heard the phrase “your phone needs an upgrade.” Or maybe you ask yourself, how many times do you have to replace your phone’s charger or power cord (which requires buying a whole set of accessories) before it can achieve some degree of functionality?
With electronics, the need for forced upgrades is often driven by small software changes or the installation of hard-to-access components, obstacles that even professional repairers cannot overcome. This trend is not unique to digital technology. This mechanism is further reinforced by building hard-to-repair features into components, ensuring that replacement parts will only work for phones, computers, vehicles, or tractors with exact matching serial numbers.
Companies’ efforts to retain their products after consumers have purchased them are already reshaping many sectors of the economy. One chilling example is John Deere, which for years has forced American farmers to turn to only a small number of specialized repair shops with the unique diagnostic and access tools they need when their tractors need repairs (even in the middle of critical harvest or planting seasons).
A lawsuit against John Deere by Midwestern farmers is ongoing.
Several big tech companies are beginning to waver in the face of growing opposition. Tech giants Apple and Google have said they will support laws in Oregon and California where pressure from environmental groups has been taken at some level seriously.
In fact, the only noticeable backlash against the premise of the right-to-repair movement has felt lukewarm. Opponents of the right to repair argue that allowing customers to repair their electronics would further reduce the security of their data. Maybe. In Oregon, the law seemed to reflect the sentiments of consumer advocates and the promise that repairing electronics and appliances inevitably reduces the environmental impacts of manufacturing, transportation, and related costs.
Oregon’s new law goes further than similar laws passed in other states by addressing an aspect of the obsolescence problem called “part pairing,” which uses software to mandate the use of certain parts (read the next sentence). Controlled, Pay as you go, Profitable) Repair or modification of parts.
Suppose an automaker wanted to gain more control over its product. One way to achieve this with existing technology would be to put RF chips in the tires or side mirrors and then transmit the appropriate (i.e. Paid to the manufacturer or the manufacturer’s customer) Replacement component.
Under such a plan, management would be more centralized than ever before.
What if conglomerates were involved financially or otherwise in social credit programs? At this point, with enough desire and motivation, it is conceivable that “social penalties” could limit not only your bank account but even your access to necessary components of your various holdings. So how can you plow a field or deliver refrigerated produce?
This overarching problem of centralized powers creeping deeper into absolute ownership and control (we are merely renters, in effect slaves to the production of further technology) needs to be addressed in the strongest and most sensible terms possible. Right to repair seems like it would be part of that. In the long term, the alternative is clear: a nightmarish and inevitable Internet of Things, where compliance with corporate and government dictates becomes a condition of use for every appliance, meter, and thermostat, each connected to a central AI for management and function.
