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

[Col4bin]

The sensor IS PART of THE CHAIN OF TRUST, whether you use the sensor OR NOT, the hardware INSIDE IT is checked on boot (and at other times) and if it doesn't marry up to a trusted value, it's kicked out.

People, take a week off whining (and a LOT of load off the internet!) and study THIS document, and then come back if and WHEN you understand it:

https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

If not, shush, and leave it to people WHO UNDERSTAND.

Then it's a fundamental design flaw. Fact: the home button's use as a fingerprint sensor is 100% arbitrary. If I've never set it up as a security check point to access my phone, never setup or used Apple Pay, if the home button is or was only ever used as a home button, then it shouldn't be held against me if I choose to have it repaired via third party. There is zero security risk involved but thanks for your cool pdf and the douchey condescending tone, dork.

 

[AFDoc]

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?

IF what is going wrong was specifically caused by software lexus put in the vehicle so you couldn't use 3rd party repair shops, yes.... yes it is.

 

[C DM]

Once you purchase your phone, it is your phone - it is your prerogative to do whatever you like, with the risk of rendering your warranty void. This is not a warranty issue.

Apple created an update which sweeps your phone for non-apple branded products (repairs), and upon finding said repairs/products, shuts your phone down, that is borderline criminal. No reasonable user of an iPhone would ever have foreseen that this would be something that would arise if they used 3rd party repairs - the most that would happen is that your warranty would be void. Additionally, the agreement you agree to before updating your phone does not include any information regarding the update - it does not mention that your phone may or may not be rendered inoperable so as to avoid having to update it.

For example, if you purchase a Ford and put aftermarket wheels and tint the windows, then take it in for servicing, would it be fair for them to kill your engine because you have put aftermarket products on your vehicle?

This is not a warranty issue - this is a deliberate attempt to compel those who OWN their iPhones to have to purchase new ones with no other alternative option. But for the update, my phone was working perfectly. The fair thing to do would have been to deny the privilege of having your phone updated.

I see a huge legal problem for apple and once the floodgates open, they'll regret having imposed such an unfair, unreasonable and bizarre update.

Well, to be fair, the risk of doing whatever you want with something is not just that warrant might be voided, but that the item might no longer work properly or at all.

 

[Rigby]

I suspect Apple took a short cut.

Yes, it's possible. But if they already have logic in place to detect a changed fingerprint sensor, it shouldn't be difficult to permanently disable Touch ID (the code for that already exists after all since there is a switch in the settings). As it is, it doesn't seem too far fetched to suspect that Apple is doing this intentionally in an effort to obstruct third party repair services. If that is not the case, they should make an effort to explain their reasons and remove the doubts.

On the other hand, if Apple did disable Touch ID and Apple Pay, the users would be complaining (and the lawyers litigating) about that.

I don't think so. They would direct their complaints to the person who did the repair. It's the disabling of the entire phone that many people find objectionable.

 

[dk001]

I cannot find any reference in the article you linked to anyone having had this problem after a repair at an authorized repair facility. They mention a couple countries (Macedonia, Dubai)... But not what type of facility.

This was meant as a starting point not as the all-source of truth.
Finding one that Apple fixed and that fixed caused the repair will likely be hard to find. All most can do is infer the cause.
Most likely it would be an authorized dealer who use OEM parts and just replaced a button instead of the screen button pair.

Thanks for digging into this one though.

 

[C DM]

IF what is going wrong was specifically caused by software lexus put in the vehicle so you couldn't use 3rd party repair shops, yes.... yes it is.

And if they put that in because there's possibility of non-authorized shops putting in something that can compromise something serious? Like there have been some exploits that were discovered with GM software on some of their cars that can perhaps be used to take control of their vehicles? Perhaps changing out some controller part would allow that kind of an issue to be exploited?

 

[uid15]

Then it's a fundamental design flaw. Fact: the home button's use as a fingerprint sensor is 100% arbitrary. If I've never set it up as a security check point to access my phone, never setup or used Apple Pay, if the home button is or was only ever used as a home button, then it shouldn't be held against me if I choose to have it repaired via third party. There is zero security risk involved but thanks for your cool pdf and the douchey condescending tone, dork.

Doesn't understand "chain of trust", complains anyway. The hardware INSIDE THE SENSOR AND/OR BUTTON, COMPLETES A TRUSTED CHAIN, REMOVAL OF WHICH CAUSES THE ERROR. Whether or not you USE the sensor is irrelevant.

Wow.

This thread.

 

[dk001]

It's been discussed at another website (http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...suit-over-iphones-touch-id-connected-error-53) that the law firm is referencing this forum thread. The law firm on it's facebook page talks about this thread.

Not a surprise. I hit a couple of news aggregators and the link to this thread was in the top 5 articles listed on each.

 

[AFDoc]

Hey Ford!! I took the ignition out of my Explorer and replaced it with one from Bob's Cheap Ignitions down the street, and now my car won't start! You bastards did this on purpose! I'm lawyering up!

Your argument isn't even close to being comparable. NOW if the software in the Explorer is what caused the Bob's Cheap Ignition not to work you'd be on the right track. It's not the part that's causing the problem... it's apple's software not allowing a perfectly functioning part to not work properly is the problem... but hey don't let something like facts get in the way of your rant.

 

[dk001]

You assume that this warning would go to the user, and not to some hacker/thief trying to break into your device using a new method of tricky modified replacement parts. Why would you want to give this thief a second chance to try and steal your financial data?

Because ... sheesh ... when you reboot your device or do an update, TouchID cannot be used. The OS requires you to put in your passcode/passphrase as the initial entry, the initial store entry, even the two banking apps I have that use TouchID require your password the initial time after reboot.

So how is this getting around security?

 

[AFDoc]

As always, people continue to not take responsibility for their actions. You violated the terms of your agreement, voided your warrenty to save a few bucks, now you need to spend a thousand....oh well

So you think voiding a warranty should = not being able to use the product? That kind of thinking is a but dim don't you think?

 

[dk001]

Likely Apple added that in the recent software update after become aware of a security vulnerability.

It sounds like you believe all possible security vulnerabilities at the present and going out into the future are known or knowable at product launch, and there will be no need for future updates.

You might want to think about that...

I have and this does not read as a security item. If it did it would kick it at the point of occurrence not wait for an OS update. This looks more like a system status check during OS update. System, not security.

 

[furi0usbee]

To all those people using the TERRIBLE analogy of car parts, you clearly don't understand that a CAR does not store banking information, personal photos, a secure wallet, myriad logins for almost anything you can imagine...

TERRIBLE, laughable analogy - go back to analogy school and make up a better one.

Terrible analogy until there is a federal ruling. The bottom line is Apple locks out customers from repairing their own devices. I would love to see that challenged in court.

 

[AFDoc]

Nope, you choose to go with aftermarket parts from a non-dealership shop. Lexus is not responsible at all for any problems that would arise from the systems that are connected to those aftermarket parts.

EX: You buy an aftermarket remote engine starter for your 2016 Lexus from your local wal-mart, and have your mechanic install it. Both are aftermarket retailers and neither are authorized by Lexus. 2 weeks from now, your Lexus issued key fob no longer works and the engine doesn't start properly. You take it to Lexus for repair (because it is brand new and under warranty) and they determine it is due to the aftermarket remote starter and improper installation. Thus, Lexus isn't liable for this repair and you are stuck with a rather hefty bill. Same goes for Apple.

But that's not what apple is doing and your argument doesn't hold water. Try this.... your mechanic installs the starter and there are no issues. Lexus then pushes an update OTA to your car that includes code that says if there are any 3rd party parts on the car it won't work..... THAT is a more accurate situation. So if you're going to try and argue at least make it a comparable argument.
[doublepost=1454985840][/doublepost]

Nope. If they would have repaired it properly, with genuine components like an Apple Store does, that error would not happen

Obviously you can't or didn't read the story.

 

[doelcm82]

They tried that same argument when they lost the case about jailbreaking your phone. The reality is that even an authentic OEM button will still brick your phone. If Apple makes the revalidating software available to authorized repair shops, this will create a much bigger security issue then a touchID sensor that simply doesn't do anything. How exactly is a replacement button a security issue? You have no idea what your talking about. Their claim is that someone could engineer a device that would use the buttons connection to gain access to the phone, completely different things there buddy.

Legally, Apple can't stop you from jailbreaking your phone. If it doesn't work after you jailbreak, that's your problem, though, isn't it?

They can't stop you from repairing or otherwise physically modifying your iPhone. How could they? The most they can do is protect their most sensitive parts from whatever unauthorized software and physical hacks they can identify.

 

[uid15]

Here's how it works, dumbed down for ANYONE to comprehend:

Imagine you have a "Chip and PIN" credit card, and the chip becomes damaged, and you decide to buy a silicon wafer from a possibly nefarious, unknown eBay shop (they're called "gold cards" and DO exist), prise the broken chip out of your credit card, and replace it with a wafer you bought from some unknown quantity Chinese seller... and then attempt to draw money from your ATM. You then wonder "Why won't they let me have MY money?"

The silicon is the trusted part that tells the bank "Hey, he's Joe Schmoe, he is the owner, give him his money, his credentials check out okay"

Well duh... just a LITTLE thought, perhaps?

 

[AFDoc]

And if they put that in because there's possibility of non-authorized shops putting in something that can compromise something serious? Like there have been some exploits that were discovered with GM software on some of their cars that can perhaps be used to take control of their vehicles? Perhaps changing out some controller part would allow that kind of an issue to be exploited?

Its not up to them to decide what parts a consumer puts int their car or device. It's mine, it's up to me. The law also covers me in my choice to have any person or company repair my phone. NOW if that repair causes issue so be it..... but apple cant MAKE that repair cause problems with MY phone.

 

[doelcm82]

But that's not what apple is doing and your argument doesn't hold water. Try this.... your mechanic installs the starter and there are no issues. Lexus then pushes an update OTA to your car that includes code that says if there are any 3rd party parts on the car it won't work..... THAT is a more accurate situation. So if you're going to try and argue at least make it a comparable argument

No, Apple isn't checking for EVERY part to make sure it's not 3rd Party. To make a comparable argument Lexus would have to limit its check to those parts that put the security of the passengers at risk.

 

[dk001]

Let me get this straight: someone steals phones, got to a third party "repair" shop and replaces components so that the fingerprint ID can be compromised, then can use the phone for ApplePay and whatever else the victims hasn't been able to disable yet. Not to mention also just being able to reset and resell of stolen phone. And you're OK with wth this?
Cybersecurity demands end to end authentication including the devices and connections along the way. Apple is being responsible by validating components every time they are accessed.

Okay - let's take your scenario .
Take a stolen device, replace the TouchID sensor, reboot the phone and.... it asks for the passcode. Got it with that new sensor? Didn't think so.
Next

 

[LovingTeddy]

Doesn't understand "chain of trust", complains anyway. The hardware INSIDE THE SENSOR AND/OR BUTTON, COMPLETES A TRUSTED CHAIN, REMOVAL OF WHICH CAUSES THE ERROR. Whether or not you USE the sensor is irrelevant.

Wow.

This thread.

And the error came after 10 month of usage and via a software update. Such trusted chain. I think that chain was malfunctioned for few months. So it is design flaw or Apple intentionally doing it


Anyway, this error does not concern me that much. As my iPhone is pretty much inside my drawer all the time.

 

[AFDoc]

Why should Apple stay liable for non-OEM parts used?

Let's apply this logic to BMW. I go to a non-BMW service center and get a certain part replaced with an non-OEM equivalent. It doesn't work in the future. I can't go to the BMW dealer and be like "hey, why doesn't it work right?" The dealer will tell you it's because of the non-OEM part used. In this case, the owner wouldn't sue BMW. Why should it be any different for Apple?

If BMW specifically put code in the program for your car to ensure that part doesn't work who should they sew? There is nothing wrong with the parts being put in the car (phones).... it's the software code that isn't allowing the parts to work..... sometimes days/weeks/months after the repair.

 

[uid15]

And the error came after 10 month of usage and via a software update. Such trusted chain. I think that chain was malfunctioned for few months. So it is design flaw or Apple intentionally doing it

So Apple tightened their security policies with an update (their perogative, their platform), and you think that's a BAD thing because it protects you MORE? It's called keeping their integrity and protecting their customers.

Wow... mere words can't express... this thread is a bucket of fail and intentional misunderstandings that someone pushed over, and it spilled everywhere, and the puddle continues to spread, causing increasing numbers of people to "slip over" on the spill of misinformation.

Wow... have a nice day whingers.

 

[AFDoc]

Here we go again.

If a person makes repairs to a product I sold them by a non third party repairer then their warranty is void simple go away or buy a replacement.

Those who take these risks know they are gambling just like you do purchasing anything cheap.

Do I feel sorry for them hell no.

Voiding the warranty is one thing.... having apple... sometimes months later cause the phone to become unusable simply because they changed the code in the phone isn't right and is possibly illegal. Not sure why that's so hard for some to understand.
[doublepost=1454986537][/doublepost]

So Apple tightened their security policies with an update (their perogative, their platform), and you think that's a BAD thing because it protects you MORE?

Wow... mere words can't express...

Yet it's the consumers phone.... and the law says they can have that phone fixed at any establishment of their choosing.

 

[LovingTeddy]

Here's how it works, dumbed down for ANYONE to comprehend:

Imagine you have a "Chip and PIN" credit card, and the chip becomes damaged, and you decide to buy a silicon wafer from a possibly nefarious, unknown eBay shop (they're called "gold cards" and DO exist), prise the broken chip out of your credit card, and replace it with a wafer you bought from some unknown quantity Chinese seller... and then attempt to draw money from your ATM. You then wonder "Why won't they let me have MY money?"

The silicon is the trusted part that tells the bank "Hey, he's Joe Schmoe, he is the owner, give him his money, his credentials check out okay"

Well duh... just a LITTLE thought, perhaps?

Anyway, I could still disable the chip and swip the card. It is not like I cannot use my card.

 

[doelcm82]

Its not up to them to decide what parts a consumer puts int their car or device. It's mine, it's up to me. The law also covers me in my choice to have any person or company repair my phone. NOW if that repair causes issue so be it..... but apple cant MAKE that repair cause problems with MY phone.

The New version of iOS is not designed to work with the non-Apple parts in your phone. If you modify your phone outside Apple's approved parameters, then don't expect to update the iOS.