Chair

• Aaron Perzanowski, Thomas W. Lacchia Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School

Speakers

• Paul. F. Roberts, President of The Secure Resilient Future Foundation (SRFF) 

• Lachlan Urquhart, Senior Lecturer in Technology Law and Human-Computer Interaction, University of Edinburgh

• Denver Gingerich, Director of Compliance, Software Freedom Conservancy

The rise of technology is evident. Software has become embedded in nearly every aspect of modern society. While these technological advancements have improved certain aspects of life, such as efficiency, they have also fundamentally created barriers to the right to repair. Throughout this panel on Repair and Computerization, Panelists explore how this increased use of technologies has challenged traditional understanding of ownership and has highlighted the growing need for strong legislative protections.

Dr. Aaron Perzanowski, panel lead, started off the panel by highlighting how manufacturers have been pursuing various forms of planned obsolescence for at least a century now. As further explained by Mr. Paul Roberts, planned obsolescence occurs when software manufacturers are able to code failures into devices or make it so that software is extremely difficult to repair. In addition to this, as discussed through the previous panel on Repair and the Economy, manufacturers have increasingly restricted access to the tools, diagnostic information and knowledge, further entrenching these barriers.

 According to Mr. Denver Gingerich, this evolution can be understood as a history of observability. This is where the inner workings and design of older products were generally visible and understandable to consumers. As Mr. Gingerich stated, for a long time, observability was inherent. He used the example of a nail and a horseshoe, where you could see if it was bent or chipped, and for the most part, it was a simple fix. However, since the adoption of newer software, the inner workings of many devices have become increasingly hidden from consumers. Reflecting this point, Mr. Gingerich drew upon an example. He highlighted that for most of the 20th century, vehicles were easy to repair because there was a bit of observability through access to shop manuals. However, this began to change as manufacturers started using software and stopped giving consumers these shop manuals. As a result, consumers gradually lost the ability to understand how their vehicles functioned, and local shops began to lack the access to carry out legal repairs on vehicles. Building on this idea, he also noted that the lack of repairability among devices due to software is becoming increasingly alarming.

As Mr. Roberts highlighted, there is often this misconception of liability issues regarding repair. One of which, he highlighted, is that by not knowing the inner workings of the software within your device, we are keeping malicious actors out. He emphasized that this is significantly incorrect. He argued that, in reality, not being able to replace your software after the manufacturer's end of support for the device, the device is then more likely to be taken over by malicious actors.

Addressing these issues of reliability among devices and vehicles, Dr. Lachlan Urquhart took a broader and more normative dimension on these issues. For him, it is not necessarily about returning a product to its original functionality; it is more about questioning and analyzing why that product was designed that way in the first place. He, like many among the panel, viewed repair as a way of imagining and developing better systems for the future. That said, for many of the panellists, achieving this vision depends on addressing the structural barriers that currently limit the right to repair. As a result, throughout this panel, conversations tended to turn towards the role of legislation in consumer access to information, diagnostic tools, and software. Mr. Paul Roberts emphasized the need for legal protections such as disclosure agreements. In particular, he argued that manufacturers should be required to clearly inform consumers how long their software will support the devices being sold. To illustrate the importance of such disclosure, he drew upon a fairly recent example. During the pandemic, many schools purchased an abundance of Chromebooks. The software support for the Chromebooks was ending because Google had a five-year support life. However, these same Chromebooks would have been sitting on the shelf for about two years before purchase, with no knowledge of this prior to purchasing the Chromebooks for students. The support for these devices would then have left schools with functioning laptops for only about three years.

On the other hand, Mr. Gingerich highlighted the areas in which there are regulations and guidelines manufacturers must comply with but have yet to. To explain this, he used what he referred to as the box theory. Box theory is the idea that there should be no limitations on how you can modify, change, adapt, repair, or fix a device in your possession. This applies to both hardware and software. Drawing on this framework, Mr. Gingerich argued that manufacturers should not be able to use software as a means of limiting consumers' ability to repair their own devices. He further noted that in some cases, companies have failed to meet existing regulations regarding access to information and software resources. As a result, considerable attention has been directed toward ensuring these companies are held accountable. Further, he emphasizes that when drafting new pieces of legislation, policymakers should use box theory as a litmus test to ensure that consumers are not unnecessarily restricted from repairing the devices that they own.

Throughout the panel, it became evident that many of the challenges facing the right to repair are rooted in the questions of access, transparency, and control in an increasingly digital world. Through discussions of observability, planned obsolescence, and legislative protections, panellists explored the ways in which we as a society can overcome these barriers and ultimately place consumers at the centre of the products they own.