Law Firms Consider 'Error 53' Lawsuits Against Apple as Some Stores Authorized for Repairs

[gaximus]

Do you have a book called 'Crap Analogies' by any chance?

How is that a crap analogy, its a statement on what I think my car should do. The analogy is that Apple sees your device could be getting tampered with, and as a security, blocks all access to the phone, and 'Car manufacture' sees your car is getting tampered with, and as a security blocks all access to the car.

 

[C DM]

If this is true, why does it take a software update to trigger the error? If Apple's story was true, it would detect the third party hardware at boot time, and disable the device. I guess Apple feels that your fingerprint is okay for hackers to steal until the next software update is released.

To date, this is the biggest load of horse **** I have ever heard from Apple.

Perhaps those checks aren'd done by the typical boot process and are part of a different process that only gets used as part of updates or restores or something else similar?

 

[ChazSch]

And again, read the headline! It clearly says "...Some Stores Authorized For Repairs"

then said authorized stores were NOT DOING THE REPAIRS CORRECTLY OR WITH AUTHORIZED PARTS...

 

[C DM]

Wow, replacing my damaged home button will get me killed now!

I had a look at my paperwork and there was no indication that any work done on the home button by anyone else other than them would lead to a kill switch being applied.......

Analogies are not exact comparisons, which is why they are called analogies and not something like exact comparisons.

 

[Nunyabinez]

Except... doing the repair incompetently (i.e. failing to properly pair secure components) means that it's not actually functioning correctly. The effects of the error might incur a delay, but it's still an error. That would become abundantly clear if it ever got to court.

However, does doing a repair incorrectly necessitate disabling the entire product, or just the improperly installed component. Apple should know about sandboxing right?

 

[lordofthereef]

The question here is whether or not Apple is purposefully bricking devices because of third party hardware.

On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, one shouldn't have to go to only Apple to get their device repaired much like one isn't forced to go to the manufacturer of their vehicle, or computer, or virtually anything else I can think of to get it serviced. Warranty is one thing. Rendering a device unusable is another.

Either way, I am interested in Apple's response, particularly because this is such a recent occurrence.

I also realize it's hip to blame lawyers from being greedy and terrible, but the reality is, without lawyers and law, any company could abuse anyone in any way they wanted. Based on the information we know (which is probably the tip of the iceberg), nobody can really tell me there absolutely isn't a case here. Perhaps there is, and part of the process is finding out. If Apple is bricking devices that had screens replaced, they had better have a damn good reason for it. Otherwise I would think it very easy to argue tha Apple simply wants the profits from repairs to themselves.

 

[DCIFRTHS]

Yeah, that's the only part of this that's really worrying, and in my opinion it's probably a bug.

Even if TouchID is compromised, you should still be able to access the phone using your passcode. The way TouchID is architected, it never gives you any more protection that your passcode/password; it's just a shortcut for typing them in.

Whenever you authenticate with TouchID, it just virtually types in your passcode/password in to the screen. That's one of the reasons it's so secure - it's all hardware, not inspectable by software, and the app just ends up with a password to authenticate like if you'd typed it in manually.

So you are saying that my bank, and all third party apps, allow me to log in with only my phone's four digit password? Mastercard, Visa etc. allow this too? I find that hard to believe. My bank doesn't / shouldn't know my phones passcode. Even if it did, it wouldn't match my bank password.

I'm guessing that the Touch ID either returns a "go" or "no go" to the app that queries the Touch ID information. "Yes, this is Joe Mama, it's okay to let him proceed."

Any developers care to comment on this?

 

[gaximus]

Wow, replacing my damaged home button will get me killed now!

I had a look at my paperwork and there was no indication that any work done on the home button by anyone else other than them would lead to a kill switch being applied.......

You don't seem to understand what an analogy is or how it works.

There are a lot of things that don't have paperwork indicating things that will happen if something else happens.

 

[LordVic]

How is that a crap analogy, its a statement on what I think my car should do. The analogy is that Apple sees your device could be getting tampered with, and as a security, blocks all access to the phone, and 'Car manufacture' sees your car is getting tampered with, and as a security blocks all access to the car.

The analogy was still inconsistent with the events that are occuring with the phone

a Better car analogy could be:

Your key snaps off inside the lock. You take it to your local area mechanic, who replaces all 4 of your cars locks and gives you a new key.

You resume using your car for 6 months with no adverse affects.

6 Months later, your dealership installs a software update when they perform an oil change and that software update detects that the locks are no longer provided directly from them

The car software disables your engine.

your car manufacturer tells you "Sucks to be you, but you can buy a new car now!" and tells you they did it for your security, because they weren't the ones who provided you the new lock and key

 

[Nunyabinez]

If my car detects that someone is trying to break into my drivers side door, it should disable all locks on the car, and disable the ignition, not just the lock being tampered with.

Forever? Shouldn't you be able to unlock it with the key later, or would you be happy that your car got bricked? And please stop with car analogies everyone, they are always poor and limited.

 

[BaldiMac]

That's because it's not a conspiracy, what you think Apple cares about you? Hahahahahaha no... They only want your money and then for you to lap up their image and advertising to persuade more people to give them their money. It's a capitalist world run by giant corporations. No conspiracy to it at all.

The evil corporation that cares of only money seems like the plot of many a conspiracy. Reality is that corporations don't care about anything. Money or otherwise. The people within corporation do care. And I'd bet a whole lot of them care about things more than money.

 

[bazzasc]

How is that a crap analogy, its a statement on what I think my car should do. The analogy is that Apple sees your device could be getting tampered with, and as a security, blocks all access to the phone, and 'Car manufacture' sees your car is getting tampered with, and as a security blocks all access to the car.

In your 'analogy' the car is getting broken into anyway so reacts to it. The Apple one is pre-emptive as nothing has been stolen or is in the process of being stolen. In fact, I have seen nothing convincing that anything is at risk of being stolen

The analogy would be that you forget to lock your car and the car locks all the doors and immobilises itself. You can no longer open your car or drive it unless the company who built the car charge you money to do so. I

f that happened I would ask why the car could not just auto lock and that I could open it with my key instead of being completely unusable

 

[dk001]

I may be incorrect, but I believe that in the terms of use Apple states using unauthorized 3rd party repair shops may void your warranty and lead to unexpected results, even those rendering the device unusable.

Solution? DON'T utilize unauthorized 3rd parties!

Sounds great. IF you have a shop close enough to use. There are a lot of places in the USA that don't. Then there are other countries. You have to be realistic.

 

[bazzasc]

The analogy was still inconsistent with the events that are occuring with the phone

a Better car analogy could be:

Your key snaps off inside the lock. You take it to your local area mechanic, who replaces all 4 of your cars locks and gives you a new key.

You resume using your car for 6 months with no adverse affects.

6 Months later, your dealership installs a software update when they perform an oil change and that software update detects that the locks are no longer provided directly from them

The car software disables your engine.

your car manufacturer tells you "Sucks to be you, but you can buy a new car now!" and tells you they did it for your security, because they weren't the ones who provided you the new lock and key

That was a better one than my feeble attempt which was still infinitely better than the original simplistic one

 

[dk001]

Let me ask you this: Should I have my barber fix my car's transmission?

That would be NO! And if I did, I wouldn't expect Honda to fix it when it broke or didn't work...why...because my barber isn't qualified nor is he an authorized mechanic for Honda. The same thing applies here. People take their iPhones to un-authorized retailers to get it fixed and the complain when Apple disables the device?

So, the lesson of the day...take your **** to the right people if you want it to work.

No, but I could have Joe's Garage repair something instead of the closest GM dealer - which could be a long ways away.

 

[garylapointe]

With few exceptions, it is illegal in the US and apparently much of the EU, to require that a consumer use only the manufacturer's parts or service centers.

That's why anyone can add non-Apple memory to their Mac, and why anyone can use a non-Ford battery in their car.

And that's also why the Apple Warranty only says that DAMAGE caused by such activities can void the warranty. So one question is, did the third party part cause the damage. Or was it Apple's OS change.

Perhaps Apple should provide a service to re-link sensors, just like locksmiths have to program automobile key fobs.

That's an awful lot of rules / laws to mention without quoting any sources.

When the non-Ford battery doesn't work in the car, is it's Ford's problem?

Besides, it seems like there needs to be something (to protect me) when it involves security and a device that scans my fingerprint to enable access to my financial accounts...

Gary

 

[bazzasc]

You don't seem to understand what an analogy is or how it works.

There are a lot of things that don't have paperwork indicating things that will happen if something else happens.

Hahahahahahaha....I don't understand analogy?

And on your second point, I would want a bloody good explanation why they didn't tell me if it came to transpire.....just as they should be providing now really

 

[Nunyabinez]

Except... doing the repair incompetently (i.e. failing to properly pair secure components) means that it's not actually functioning correctly. The effects of the error might incur a delay, but it's still an error. That would become abundantly clear if it ever got to court.

I agree with your reasoning, but the error should result in disabling the specific function that is incorrectly installed, not completely disabling your whole phone with a nondescript error.

 

[lordofthereef]

A better analogy would be when you take your ford car to the ford dealership for an oil change and they see you have tires not authorized by ford with no tread that will explode causing you to wreck if you keep driving on them, and they say you can't leave with those tires on them.
Which does happen and by law they can't let you drive away.

But what I can do is have my car towed where I can choose my own brand of replacement tire and pay 1/2 the labor for the same service. In your example Ford is telling the consumer what is wrong, what needs doing, and that they are legally obligated to disallow operation of the vehicle.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Apple hasn't made any information about disabling devices in this manner public. It just started happening. Further, it started happening after software updates, so some of these repairs could have been weeks or months old already. I am willing to believe that this is 100% in the name of security, but it should be public knowledge and it should be in the release notes or on Apple's website or something, at the very least. Instead, people are finding out the hard way.

 

[dk001]

So, according to this logic, if you take your new Lexus to a non-dealership repair shop and they put non-factory aftermarket replacement parts on your car, Lexus is liable when something goes wrong?

Wrong allegory.
You take your Lexus to a non-dealership repair shop and the next time you take your Lexus to get something updated (EMC, GPS Maps, etc...) it kills your car and will no longer even allow you into the vehicle.
With no warning and no indication what is going on.

 

[scrannel]

Since 1890 (glad you EU folk finally caught up) we've had laws that required manufacturers to allow 3rd party shops to work on their products. In this case by denying the OEM parts to replace the "home button" (thus forcing the consumer to go to an Apple store for this service) they are acting illegally. Period.

 

[danranda]

hope they win megabucks from this

Why should they win money for intentionally voiding their warranty???
This is absurd. People need to wake up and realize these are not light bulbs or AA batteries. You can't just use any substitute part you like. I would ask them, what would you do if Apple did not secure your data as you expect them to? Would you sue them also if they allowed knock-off parts to work in their security systems and ended up letting "my buddy Joe who replaces broken iPhone parts on the cheap" steal their secure information?

People have to start asking themselves "am I being shortsighted by trying to save $30 on a repair?"

 

[bazzasc]

That's an awful lot of rules / laws to mention without quoting any sources.

When the non-Ford battery doesn't work in the car, is it's Ford's problem?

Besides, it seems like there needs to be something (to protect me) when it involves security and a device that scans my fingerprint to enable access to my financial accounts...

Gary

No it isn't Ford's problem in that case but it is absolutely irrelevant to the points that are being made

 

[a0me]

These are security-related items that are being replaced by those from unknown vendors. A very bad idea.

Consider: your TouchID does more than just open your phone. It also authenticates ApplePay transactions, and many other apps depend on the integrity of TouchID for authentication purposes. Off the top of my head, my own phone uses TouchID authentication to open 1Password (which contains ALL my accounts and passwords), several financial and health applications, and so on. Not to mention four credit cards stored in my Wallet.

If my TouchID were compromised, I'm not entirely convinced that bricking my phone is the worst-case scenario!

You are right but why not simply disable Touch ID and allow the phone to continue to work?

 

[lordofthereef]

then said authorized stores were NOT DOING THE REPAIRS CORRECTLY OR WITH AUTHORIZED PARTS...

Or there is a problem with Apple's code. This is incredibly new. We don't really know. We have had Apple's updates do other, admittedly more minor, strange things, such as disabling mobile data, wifi quirks, etc.

The only constant, AFAIK, is that these devices were serviced. I do believe the OS has a way to desipher if a unit has even been opened. Not saying this is abslutely an error on Apple's part, but do we know it is not?