dannym

That’s not the issue. You can attempt as many passwords as you want in actually secure password managers as well. KeepassXC for instance IS secure, you can still brute force the password, but because of the hashing algorithm they use it’s extremely hard. With PKZIP if you know some of the words in the file, you can easily guess the password in just a few hours because the encryption algorithm it uses isn’t secure

The UK has a data protection agency? Does the UK know? Have they been asleep for the past 20 years?

How about using LDAP? It's a bit complicated to learn but it's easy to integrate it in a bunch of applications and it allows you to manage user accounts and permissions in one central place.

Maybe try LLDAP which is a modern implementation (haven't used it myself) which is designed to be simplified and I assume more welcoming to newcomers.

asus's router webui

Pretty clear you either haven’t read the bill or grossly misunderstood it. What you describe is not proposed legislation - it’s the current reality that individuals and independent repair shops already live with.

The 2024 variant of the bill isn’t actually publicly available online, but here’s last year’s WIP text:

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB542

Absolutely, the bill you mentioned is the one I was referring to. It does state that manufacturers must provide documentation, tools, and parts to both independent repairers and owners under fair terms. However, the real issue lies in how "fair and reasonable terms" are interpreted and applied in practice.

Here's a quote from Google's actual response:

User safety should be a top priority. Improper repair can be dangerous—especially if individuals use faulty parts or are unfamiliar with safety critical components, such as lithium ion batteries.** Legislation should acknowledge the risks borne by unskilled repairers and allow original equipment manufacturers (OEM) to provide parts assemblies rather than individual components to reduce the risk of injury.**

Doesn't scream right to repair to me, let's continue.

Right to Repair regulation should focus on: Devices that are repaired by an OEM’s existing repair offerings3 Right to Repair legislation in the United States is focused on leveling the playing field between OEM repair and independent repair offerings and putting consumers first, which we fully support

So, if they don't repair their devices and only replace assemblies, they're not required to do anything for RTR, how convenient!

Right to Repair regulation should focus on: Parts that are provided by an OEM’s existing repair operations

Hmm... So the easiest way to comply with the law is to not do anything

Policies should encourage repairers and recycling centers to recycle or to dispose of e-waste responsibly. We believe repair can be an important mechanism to reduce the large and growing problem of e-waste

Classic corporate green washing, this doesn't mean recycling, it means break products, into as many parts as possible and dispose of them.

This is what recycling means to big tech:

Those are icloud locked iphone mainboards that have had their chips drilled through (this is "recycling). Some extremely smart people have figured out how to scrap them for parts, but that's the ingenuity of actual repair people, not Big tech's recycling.

Yes, it basically just reinforces the usual "Authorized Service Providers" spiel, i.e. it's not a real right to repair bill.

Special Access for ASPs: manufacturers have to share repair manuals, tools, and parts ONLY with ASPs under "fair and reasonable terms".

This means if you're not part of their club and haven't signed their agreements to become an ASP you may not be allowed to purchase parts. And to be clear, becoming an ASP can restrict you in the kinds of repairs you can provide, and the kinds of information you can tell your customers, under legal threat, and may require you to hit impossible sales quotas.

Parts and Conditions: It gets trickier with parts. Manufacturers aren't actually forced to give you, the little guy, access to individual parts. What they're obligated to do is to provide full assemblies to ASPs. So, if you need just a tiny part for a fix, tough luck – they can legally turn you away or make you buy a whole assembly, which is neither practical nor cost-effective.

Do you have a license for that?: It's like asking, "Do you have a permit for that fishing rod?" before you even get to the lake. The bill implies that if you want to repair these devices, you better have some sort of certification or license. This could be a huge barrier for independent repair shops, especially those who don't have the best relations with the company they repair devices of, or even DIY fixers. You want to repair something? First, prove that you're qualified according to their standards, which can be pretty steep or even unrealistic for many. It's another way of keeping the repair circle closed and controlled while pretending to be the moral authorities of social and environmental justice.

"Can't you see just how great a company we are? We're allowing you to repair YOUR device, (assuming that we like you, that is), aren't we such good people? After all you're our dear cust---------"

ERROR: CONSUMER ACCOUNT NR. 48570 TERMINATED FOR INAPPROVED WRONGSPEAK. PLEASE INSERT CREDIT CARD TO CONTINUE READING MESSAGE.

Thank you for buying from Google, we support you, we love 😍 right to repair, we love 💚 the environment and we 💕 you, dear consumer 😘... errr.... customer

I believe that the following IP ranges

• 103.231.144.0/24
• 192.31.196.0/24
• 216.176.216.0/21
• 199.248.239.0/24
• 192.198.30.0/24
• 69.12.98.42

are engaged in highly suspicious activities

furthermore I can definitely say that I found some dirty pirates hiding at the following ip ranges:

• 175.45.176.0/24
• 175.45.177.0/24
• 175.45.178.0/24
• 175.45.179.0/24

my research clearly shows proof that those people are not just pirates but also engaged in highly illegal activities such as stealing BILLIONS of dollars and hacking who knows how many servers, and that's only the crimes one can talk about online.

Exactly! This is just a PR stunt, nothing more, and it looks like "journalists" bought it.