In a recent legislative session, Apple’s principal secure repair architect, John Perry, expressed the company’s strong opposition to the proposed right-to-repair bill in Oregon. Apple argues that the bill, if passed, could put the security, safety, and privacy of its users at risk. The bill would require manufacturers to allow the use of non-original parts in repairs, potentially compromising the integrity of Apple devices.
Oregon’s right-to-repair bill differs significantly from the more lenient legislation in California. One key point of divergence is the restriction on “parts pairing,” a practice utilized by Apple to ensure that specific components, such as screens and batteries, are matched with their original iPhones. While this method aims to maintain the integrity of repairs using genuine Apple parts, it has faced criticism for limiting third-party repair options and creating a monopolistic repair ecosystem.
Critics of parts pairing argue that it limits consumer choice and contributes to electronic waste by discouraging independent and non-authorized repairs. Despite these concerns, Apple maintains that parts pairing is crucial for protecting device security and user data during the repair process.
However, cybersecurity expert Tarah Wheeler challenges Apple’s security rationale, particularly regarding routine repairs like battery and screen replacements. Wheeler argues that there are no significant security risks involved in allowing non-original parts for these repairs, suggesting that Apple’s concerns may be exaggerated.
The debate surrounding the right to repair is not limited to Oregon but extends to a national conversation. New York has already passed its own legislation on the matter, although some critics believe that the bill is too weak to have a substantial impact on consumer rights.
As the conflict between consumer advocacy groups and tech companies like Apple persists, the outcome of Oregon’s proposed right-to-repair bill may establish a precedent for similar legislation throughout the United States. The ongoing pursuit of a balance between product security and consumer rights reflects the complexity and importance of this issue.
最近的一次立法会议上，苹果公司的首席安全维修架构师约翰·佩里表达了公司对俄勒冈州提出的修复权法案的强烈反对。苹果认为，如果该法案通过，可能会危及用户的安全、隐私和数据。该法案要求制造商允许使用非原装零件进行维修，可能会损害苹果设备的完整性。
俄勒冈州的修复权法案与加利福尼亚州的相对宽松立法存在显著区别。其中一个关键区别是对“零件匹配”限制的采取，苹果使用这种方法确保特定组件（例如屏幕和电池）与其原装iPhone相匹配。虽然这种方法旨在使用真正的苹果零件来维修保持完整性，但它因限制第三方维修选择和创造垄断的维修生态系统而受到批评。
零件匹配的批评者认为它限制了消费者的选择，并通过阻止独立和未经授权的维修增加了电子废物。尽管存在这些担忧，但苹果坚持认为零件匹配对于在维修过程中保护设备安全和用户数据是至关重要的。
然而，网络安全专家塔拉·惠勒质疑了苹果关于例行维修（如更换电池和屏幕）涉及重大安全风险的安全理由，她认为针对这些维修允许非原装零件没有明显的安全风险，暗示苹果的担忧可能夸大了。
关于修复权的辩论并不仅限于俄勒冈州，还扩展到了全国范围的讨论。纽约州已经通过了自己关于这个问题的立法，尽管一些批评者认为该法案对消费者权益的影响力太弱。
随着消费者倡导组织与苹果等科技公司之间的冲突继续存在，俄勒冈州提出的修复权法案的结果可能为整个美国类似立法奠定先例。产品安全和消费者权益之间的平衡的追求反映出这个问题的复杂性和重要性。
**Key Terms:**
1. Right-to-repair bill: 修复权法案
2. Parts pairing: 零件匹配
3. Repair ecosystem: 维修生态系统
4. Consumer rights: 消费者权益
5. Cybersecurity: 网络安全
**Related links:**
1. 苹果官网
2. 维修权利相关维基百科页面