Category: Rights, Justice, & Judgement

Source: Why We Must Fight for the Right to Repair Our Electronics – IEEE Spectrum

Pending U.S. legislation could force manufacturers to make repair parts and information available at fair prices

Manufacturers don’t want you to fix that broken microwave or air conditioner; they want you to buy a new one. Some even send cease-and-desist letters to people who post repair information online.
…
In December 2016, the U.S. Copyright Office concluded a yearlong study [PDF] on copyright law, repair, and embedded software that solidly confirms that repair is legal under copyright law. The same study argues that federal copyright law can’t be used as an excuse to prevent repair.

But that hasn’t stopped some manufacturers from continuing to try.

So how can people in the United States preserve their right to repair electronics? The answer is now apparent: through right-to-repair legislation enacted at the state level.

The right to repair electronics isn’t just about repair or even about technology⁠—it’s about ownership. You bought the thing, and therefore you own it—and not just part of it but all of it. And that means you should be able to fix it or get it fixed by whomever you choose. The terms of ownership shouldn’t change just because the product has a chip in it.

Source: Before Charlottesville Was in the Spotlight, Police Arrested Their Most Prominent Critic in the Middle of the Night

Charlottesville police inserted themselves into an election for prosecutor with a last-minute arrest of a candidate.

Source: How the Elderly Lose Their Rights | The New Yorker

Guardians can sell the assets and control the lives of senior citizens without their consent—and reap a profit from it.

The Clark County guardianship commissioner, a lawyer named Jon Norheim, has presided over nearly all the guardianship cases in the county since 2005. He works under the supervision of a judge, but his orders have the weight of a formal ruling. Norheim awarded a guardianship to Parks, on average, nearly once a week. She had up to a hundred wards at a time. … [Norheim] often dismissed the objections of relatives, telling them that his only concern was the best interest of the wards, which he seemed to view in a social vacuum. When siblings fought over who would be guardian, Norheim typically ordered a neutral professional to assume control, even when this isolated the wards from their families.

As Belshe spoke to more wards and their families, she began to realize that Lakeview Terrace was not the only place where wards were lodged, and that Parks was not the only guardian removing people from their homes for what appeared to be superficial reasons.

Source: How digital devices challenge the nature of ownership and threaten property rights in the digital age

OWNERSHIP used to be about as straightforward as writing a cheque. If you bought something, you owned it. If it broke, you fixed it. If you no longer wanted it, you sold it or chucked it away. … In the digital age ownership has become more slippery. … consumers have been forced to accept that they do not control the software in their devices; they are only licensed to use it. … Buyers should be aware that some of their most basic property rights are under threat.

Ownership is not about to go away, but its meaning is changing. This requires careful scrutiny. Gadgets, by and large, are sold on the basis that they empower people to do what they want. To the extent they are controlled by somebody else, that freedom is compromised.

Also: A “right to repair” movement tools up

Source: Quick One: Stop Calling it ‘Identity Theft’ – SecurityBytes

A bank might let you take out a credit card in my name. But hey, if it wasn’t me, that’s just Credit Card Fraud, right?

A pay-day lender might give you a 7000% APR loan in my name, I guess. Credit Fraud.

The government might let you claim benefits in my name. Benefit Fraud.

You might apply for a mortgage in my name. Mortgage Fraud.

Do you see where I’m going with this?

In none of the above theoretical cases was I involved; I wasn’t the perpetrator and I wasn’t the victim.

And yet, by recasting (some) of these activities as ‘Identity Fraud’ I somehow become the one responsible for it having happened and the one who is the victim. The only way I get to be victim is if one of these organisations is duped and then they can’t or won’t address their mistakes or shortfalls and therefore they choose to pass the buck to me.