Apple Draws the Ire of Australian Government after Bricking 3rd Party Repaired Devices

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,363
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission or (ACCC) is seeking to sue Apple for bricking iOS devices that had been repaired by third party repairers. An update for iOS 9 started the bricking of devices as it could detect third party tampering with the home button or fingerprint recognition sensor. If it detected that your device had been repaired, then it would display "error 53" and not even an official Apple employee could repair your devices or recover files on it. In Australia this is illegal as it is the consumer's choice where they seek to get their devices repaired. And warranty is still valid on the device regardless of where it was repaired.

Too bad we don't have a similar system in place here. Apple and other companies have been fighting a war against the right to repair for years. Farmers can't legally repair their John Deere tractors so they have to hack the software to get it to run again. Why is it this way? I grew up diagnosing televisions and could take a VCR down to the smallest of parts and reassemble it. Why is repairing your devices so wrong nowadays? I blame the anti-consumer DRM laws.

"Denying a consumer their consumer guarantee rights simply because they had chosen a third party repairer not only impacts those consumers but can dissuade other customers from making informed choices about their repair options including where they may be offered at lower cost than the manufacturer," said ACCC chair Rod Sims. The ACCC stated that, under Australian law, the action of having a device "serviced, repaired, or replaced by someone other than Apple" cannot solely waive the consumer's right to a warranty from the manufacturer.

"As consumer goods become increasingly complex, businesses also need to remember that consumer rights extend to any software or software updates loaded onto those goods. Faults with software or software updates may entitle consumers to a free remedy under the Australian Consumer Law," said Sims.
 
The problem here is that the fingerprint sensor is an easy way to attack the device. Let's say that you're a common criminal (or the FBI) and you have a phone that you want to get into. The device is encrypted, but if you were to replace the fingerprint sensor with a dummy switch that sends an 'unlocked' signal, you have a skeleton key that will get into the phone. What Apple is doing is blocking a very easy exploit.

Once the phone detects tampering, it then wipes the encryption keys to ensure that the data on the device doesn't get recovered. With those keys gone, nobody in the world, including anyone at Apple would be able to recover your data. That's exactly the point.

This is being presented as an anti-consumer move, but it is entirely pro-security. If anything here is anti-consumer, it is that Apple has a wide profit margin on repairs. But that's something that an informed consumer should be aware of before they purchase such a device anyways, and as long as you're aware and agree to it then you have nothing to complain about.
 
Tech companies are constantly trying to get a software EULA type model on their hardware. This seems a lot like the story about the lawsuit over the reused printer cartridges from a couple months ago.

In the future, companies will be able to make autonomous cars refuse to drive if an unauthorized repair has taken place.
 
TrailRunner said:
The problem here is that the fingerprint sensor is an easy way to attack the device. Let's say that you're a common criminal (or the FBI) and you have a phone that you want to get into. The device is encrypted, but if you were to replace the fingerprint sensor with a dummy switch that sends an 'unlocked' signal, you have a skeleton key that will get into the phone. What Apple is doing is blocking a very easy exploit.

Once the phone detects tampering, it then wipes the encryption keys to ensure that the data on the device doesn't get recovered. With those keys gone, nobody in the world, including anyone at Apple would be able to recover your data. That's exactly the point.

This is being presented as an anti-consumer move, but it is entirely pro-security. If anything here is anti-consumer, it is that Apple has a wide profit margin on repairs. But that's something that an informed consumer should be aware of before they purchase such a device anyways, and as long as you're aware and agree to it then you have nothing to complain about.
Click to expand...

There is no simple "unlock" signal in the fingerprint sensor, and it is not an easy way to hack the device. The fingerprint sensor sends the scan data to the OS, it then processes the scan data to see if the fingerprint matches, and then it unlocks the device if it does match. It's not one of those Hollywood "splice the two wires and it unlocks" kind of locks. (Which, BTW, don't exist anywhere.) The only reason 'tampering' with the phone would cause issues that the OS would lock everything down is to force people to buy a new phone. That is the ONLY reason. There is no other.
 
My gen(1970) and before came up tearing stuff apart, learning how it works, and improving.

Then we now have the knowledge to make a better, competing product.

Apple, John Deer, etc know this, and want it stopped for that main reason.

Also they make a fortune in "authorized" repairs
 
dgingeri said:
There is no simple "unlock" signal in the fingerprint sensor, and it is not an easy way to hack the device. The fingerprint sensor sends the scan data to the OS, it then processes the scan data to see if the fingerprint matches, and then it unlocks the device if it does match. It's not one of those Hollywood "splice the two wires and it unlocks" kind of locks. (Which, BTW, don't exist anywhere.) The only reason 'tampering' with the phone would cause issues that the OS would lock everything down is to force people to buy a new phone. That is the ONLY reason. There is no other.
Click to expand...

Agree with the assertion... Though I wonder if a modified sensor could always send a pre-dedefined fingerprint/Scan. Though I would assume even if possible this would be fairly limited in usefulness.
 
dandirk said:
Agree with the assertion... Though I wonder if a modified sensor could always send a pre-dedefined fingerprint/Scan. Though I would assume even if possible this would be fairly limited in usefulness.
Click to expand...

That could potentially happen, sure, but like you said, it would have very limited usefulness. If someone did need to repeatedly get into such a phone, it would be far easier to get into it once, decrypt it, and copy everything off to another medium.
 
We own and operate a new care dealership. I prefer customers that we sell new vehicles to, come back to us for all their service and repairs. However, I believe that they paid their money for the item, they can do what they want with it.

One of the misconceptions and questions I get as the service manager, "If I (the owner of the vehicle) replace part X with a different aftermarket piece, will it void my warranty?"
My response to that is, we will not warranty the part that YOU have installed, nor are we or the manufacturer responsible for any damaged caused by the failure of said part. This does not mean that your entire warranty is voided. I also believe that it is the right of the manufacturer to not pay for a warranty repair not performed by an authorized facility. Outside of that, if it is yours, you should have the right to do as you please within the law.
 
I think Apple are in the right with this... touchID is a security system and relies in end to end security. Allowing some Chinese vendor to fit their own knockoff hardware that could be skimming data or compromising security is a liability for Apple and the consumer.
 
Fk Apple. I used to manufacture accelerators, and had to leave Mac market because of hostile tactics toward 3rd party makers. Who would want there Mac running 6 times faster, that'd be silly. You will run at Apple speed, of your will not run at all.
 
realdeadman said:
My gen(1970) and before came up tearing stuff apart, learning how it works, and improving.

Then we now have the knowledge to make a better, competing product.

Apple, John Deer, etc know this, and want it stopped for that main reason.

Also they make a fortune in "authorized" repairs
Click to expand...

This is why most of the small farmers around me just keep repairing and using the equipment from 30+ years ago. We still use a 1953 Farmall Super H that my grandfather bought new, the thing just keeps going and going.

If Apple had built the original Camaro, Mustang and GTO, those would have all been bricked ages ago and no one would be allowed to enjoy one except to see them in a museum. No lifted 4x4s would exist, you would have to always replace parts with dealer sold stock items.

More or less, Apple (and others to be fair) wants everything locked down and closely controlled, sorta goes completely against that original commercial they ran promoting the Mac, you know, the one that referenced Big Brother :)
 
cocheese256 said:
We own and operate a new care dealership. I prefer customers that we sell new vehicles to, come back to us for all their service and repairs. However, I believe that they paid their money for the item, they can do what they want with it.

One of the misconceptions and questions I get as the service manager, "If I (the owner of the vehicle) replace part X with a different aftermarket piece, will it void my warranty?"
My response to that is, we will not warranty the part that YOU have installed, nor are we or the manufacturer responsible for any damaged caused by the failure of said part. This does not mean that your entire warranty is voided. I also believe that it is the right of the manufacturer to not pay for a warranty repair not performed by an authorized facility. Outside of that, if it is yours, you should have the right to do as you please within the law.
Click to expand...

Don't you know common sense isn't so common? Stop being uncommon! :)
 
I like how everyone accuses Apple of bricking products yet they are by far the biggest supporter of legacy products unlike companies like Samsung that deem a product obsolete after 12 months and cut all software support. Not like there was much support in the first place but I digress...

Macs and iPhones have very long service lives generally and are well supported for many many years.
 
with the figure print sensor, they can just flash a warning at boot, and a toast message (apple has android style toast? right)

"This is NOT an approved sensor, your data may not be secure!" or something

Just like you cant use Android pay with a unlocked bootloader
 
I'd accept that if I went to a 3rd party repair shop, my official warranty would be void.

But the fact that they are actively bricking devices with 3rd party repairs? Even I see that as crossing that line. A warning messaging saying that your phone may not be secure and is no longer under warranty should suffice in that regard.

Still, as much as I like this law, I'd NEVER let a 3rd party touch my phone unless I am absolutely sure I have no data on it. If I am not (or if the phone is broken enough I can't erase the data), I would send it only to apple for repairs, or buy a completely new phone.

Maybe I am paranoid, but the way I see it, the less parties involved with my electronic devices, the better, it's not really worth saving a few bucks to risk your data being stolen or having crappy replacement parts that will need repaired again a few months down the line.
 
aokman said:
I like how everyone accuses Apple of bricking products yet they are by far the biggest supporter of legacy products unlike companies like Samsung that deem a product obsolete after 12 months and cut all software support. Not like there was much support in the first place but I digress...

Macs and iPhones have very long service lives generally and are well supported for many many years.
Click to expand...

Not really true if you compare Apple to higher end Android phones.
The Samsung Note 4 (the phone I have) started with Version 4.x, upgrade to 5.0 and finally to 6.0. Easily comparable to Apple's upgrade policy.
Apple's updates usually restrict new features on older phones, and older phones tend to suffer performance issues.
On my Note 4, each new version ran better then the previous version.

Also, unlike Apple, there are 3rd party builds available for rooted Android devices.
I was able to upgrade an old tablet that was stuck at 4.3 to version 6.0.
The old tablet is a little slow for some games, but works great for web browsing and video streaming since installing the newer version.
 
nutzo said:
Not really true if you compare Apple to higher end Android phones.
The Samsung Note 4 (the phone I have) started with Version 4.x, upgrade to 5.0 and finally to 6.0. Easily comparable to Apple's upgrade policy.
Apple's updates usually restrict new features on older phones, and older phones tend to suffer performance issues.
On my Note 4, each new version ran better then the previous version.

Also, unlike Apple, there are 3rd party builds available for rooted Android devices.
I was able to upgrade an old tablet that was stuck at 4.3 to version 6.0.
The old tablet is a little slow for some games, but works great for web browsing and video streaming since installing the newer version.
Click to expand...

Actually no, see I had a Note 4 and the only reason it got more updates was because the Note 7 was recalled and Samsung pushed them out after it happened to give owners some more life to the older handsets...

and no Apple don't restrict features, it can make older handsets run slow though. If the phones hardware can support it, they generally get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top