Day: 2 November 2020

iPhone 12 Camera Module Replacement Now Requires a Proprietary Configuration Tool ⇥ ifixit.com

Kevin Purdy of iFixit:

We scored the iPhone 12 a 6 out of 10 for repairability when we tore it down last week. Like most iPhones, it is a device designed, generally, to be opened and serviced, even if Apple prefers that only its technicians do so. Most parts can be replaced, the design prioritizes screws instead of glue, and critical components like the display and battery are some of the easiest repairs.

But after seeing some extremely odd results in our standard camera repair tests — spurred further by YouTuber Hugh Jeffreys, whose results matched our own — we felt compelled to dig deeper. The iPhone 12 camera, when transferred to another iPhone 12, appears to work on launch, but fails miserably in actual use. It refuses to switch to the ultrawide camera, responds only to certain camera modes, and occasionally hangs and becomes completely unresponsive.

Until this point, cameras have generally been easy to swap between iPhones of the same model. Even our iPhone 12 Pro tests had no issues: every function worked fine.

If Apple were nefariously attempting to prevent independent smartphone repair, it seems to me it would have made sure to lock down both the iPhone 12 and the 12 Pro. I do not think that is the case. Like the other problems with part swaps cited by iFixit, I think it is more likely that Apple simply does not consider independent shops when figuring out how to repair the devices it makes. It has its own repair program and I bet it believes that is sufficient. I do not think iFixit’s usual cynical assumptions are meaningful.

I do, however, agree that common part replacements should not require proprietary tools or technology. It would be very stupid if you were required to bring your car into a dealership for an oil change or to put your snow tires on. I am not entirely convinced by every right to repair argument. But, as I think more about the knock-on effects of increasingly proprietary repairs, it seems unwise to trust device and equipment makers to do the right thing. The camera module is clearly more product specific than something like engine oil for a car, but surely it should be possible to swap parts from the same model.

As an editorial aside, I think iFixit’s articles would be more persuasive if they focused more on the reality of what is actually happening and less on a cause that is somehow pure evil and highly speculative.

Canada’s News Media Lobby Is Promoting Its Ill-Advised Digital Link Licensing Plan on Facebook ⇥ michaelgeist.ca

Michael Geist:

Last week, News Media Canada, the lobby group representing the major Canadian news media publishers, released a report calling for the creation of a government digital media regulatory agency that would have the power to establish mandated payments for linking to news articles on social media site, establish what content is prioritized on those sites, and potentially issue fines in the hundreds of millions of dollars. As I noted in my review of the report, it inaccurately describes the proposed Australian approach upon which it is modelled, avoids acknowledging that payments would be for links, and would open the door to hundreds of millions on tariff retaliation by the US under the USMCA.

Like the linking schemes in Australia and France, this appears to be terribly ill-advised. I might understand rules structured for special formats like AMP, or perhaps compensation for answers scraped by features like Google’s snippets. But just linking — the practice of encouraging someone to visit the source? Ridiculous.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Is Buying Cellphone Geolocation Data to Track People ⇥ buzzfeednews.com

Hamed Aleaziz and Caroline Haskins, Buzzfeed News:

In an internal memo obtained by BuzzFeed News, the DHS’s top attorney, Chad Mizelle, outlined how ICE officials can look up locations and track cellphone data activity to make decisions on enforcement.

[…]

The document says that ICE and CBP purchased people’s mobile data from a data broker, although the document does not identify which one. All of the data is stored in an indexed, searchable database accessible through a “web portal.”

ICE and CBP buy advertising identifier data, or “AdID,” which typically includes information about where a person is located, what device they’re using, what language they use, which websites they’re visiting, and which websites they buy things from. All of this information isn’t linked to a person’s name, but to a randomly generated string of characters.

[…]

The document states that the DHS purchased AdID data that is anonymized and only shows “timestamped signal location(s) within a specific time period” — or where one device has been, and when. This in and of itself doesn’t tell ICE and CBP who a person is. But the document notes that it’s possible to “combine” the data “with other information and analysis to identify an individual user.”

The idea that bulk data collection can be anonymized is a lie, as is the notion that it is complex to de-anonymize it. This has long been known in industries able to exploit it, to everyone’s detriment. Now, it is powering a vast public-private partnership of surveillance by an organization that claims jurisdiction over a generous amount of U.S. territory with increasingly invasive capabilities and little accountability.