Apple slapped with class action suit over Touch ID-related 'Error 53' code

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 72
    If Apple expects to sell automobiles which have similar "security" features, so that only authorized repair shops can do engine work, reset computers and sensors, maybe even top off the wiper fluid.... they won't be selling any such cars to me.  #GetMeThatSamsungCar
    You realize this is exactly how Tesla service works. You can only have repair work (other than body work) done by a Tesla Service Center; mainly because they are the only ones with access to parts.
    teaearlegreyhot
  • Reply 22 of 72

    tele1234 said:
    Dumbasses.

    Did either the idiots at the law firm or their alleged clients read Apple's Warranty information? It's pretty clear about what is and isn't allowed (bolded emphasis mine). 

    http://www.apple.com/legal/warranty/products/ios-warranty-document-us.html

    Did you read the same warranty document's opening paragraphs?
    I don't know about across US, but a company willfully disabling a device - for security reasons or otherwise - just wouldn't fly in many countries.


    "willfully"???

    How about the fact that you, or the idiot you took it to, damaged the device and now it doesn't work. I agree with another post that said the complaint is with whoever did the shoddy repair. Get your money back and take the phone to authorized service place that can repair it again.
  • Reply 23 of 72

    Willy Wonka to the rescue!
  • Reply 24 of 72
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,595member
    "..... as well as the release of a software update that removes the imposed repair restriction from iOS."

    Hey PVCA, go FK yourselves. So you want a software hack to reverse a security feature? I guess you morons haven't been following Apple's stance on such subject with the NSA, FBI and DOJ.
  • Reply 25 of 72
    focherfocher Posts: 687member
    So much ignorance of both warranty laws let alone the underlying problem itself. First, no manufacturer can just force a purchaser to waive their rights by creating a shrink-wrap agreement containing non-enforceable terms. Second, no manufacturer is nor should be allowed to artificially break a product because they are able to detect a non-manufacturer repair has been performed on the device.

    Forget the iPhone and just consider this in the context of your car. If you took your car to the dealer and they detected a non-dealer repair, are they allowed to make the car non-operable? What if you signed an agreement when you bought your car that forced you to only receive repairs from an authorized dealer? That's totally unenforceable (and actually illegal). The manufacturer has to show that the non-authorized repair actually caused the problem.

    Now we come to the Error 53 problem. There's a simple set of options Apple could have offered. First, the best one is to just force a reset of the TouchID security enclave. Empty it out, and if the user has the passcode (which is the real basis of the device encryption), then the user can setup TouchID again. Alternatively just force a total reset of the full device with a data wipe / erase. No security violation in either case.

    And by the way, Error 53 definitely can happen even when Apple itself repairs an iPhone as I had that very thing happen. Artificially bricking a phone during a restore or update process is just plain not necessary and definitely does not meet a fair principle of "do no harm". The question is why Apple feels compelled to brick a phone in the situation as opposed to simply refusing to run the update process.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 26 of 72
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    Last thing we need is these lawyers designing iOS features. 
  • Reply 27 of 72
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,595member

    If Apple expects to sell automobiles which have similar "security" features, so that only authorized repair shops can do engine work, reset computers and sensors, maybe even top off the wiper fluid.... they won't be selling any such cars to me.  #GetMeThatSamsungCar
    Bad analogy. This is about repairing or replacing security features on your iPhone. This is no different than if you need to replace the electronic ignition keys for your BMW, Mercedes, Audi etc. These are programmed security devices and can only be obtained through the manufacturer or authorized auto dealers, and even then the dealer needs to send away for them from a special unit that is solely responsible for programming and verifying them based on vehicle ID.
    radarthekatchia
  • Reply 28 of 72
    It's a security feature to stop iOS device thieves from simply changing the Touch ID button and gaining access to all your stuff with any thumbprint somehow.
  • Reply 29 of 72
    Is there any chance Apple will stream the proceedings live for our viewing pleasure?
  • Reply 30 of 72
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,637member
    Is suing Apple America's new national pastime, or what?

    If just half the lawyers and other forms of scumbags going after Apple were issued an M16 and a box of ammo they could take out ISIS over a long weekend.
  • Reply 31 of 72
    Why not sue the feckless "repair agent" instead? I mean, it's their ignorance, not Apple's.


    Apple doesn't provide Touch ID parts to third party repair shops so it's not a matter of "ignorance," rather they are just using the options that are available to them. The customers are made aware that replacing a Touch ID button with a standard click button means sacrificing Touch ID and ApplePay functionality, and most were willing to do so if it meant a 50 dollar repair bill versus 250 dollars on an out of warranty 5s, 6 or 6 Plus. To brick that phone months or years after the fact without warning, to close a "vulnerability" that was already nullified by removing the Touch ID sensor in the first place, is ridiculous. If Samsung had done the same thing, everyone that's been making excuses for Apple and scoffing at those affected would be screaming bloody murder, period. 
  • Reply 32 of 72
    yoyo2222 said:

    How about the fact that you, or the idiot you took it to, damaged the device and now it doesn't work. I agree with another post that said the complaint is with whoever did the shoddy repair. Get your money back and take the phone to authorized service place that can repair it again.

    You're missing the point. It's apple's decision to disable a component of a device in the name of security. it doesn't matter that it's for security, it doesn't matter that it's in the best interest of the consumer - it's giving up liberty. Does that mean nothing?

    Apple should offer a choice - one that says that a modification has been discovered in the hardware that could potentially lead to identity fraud, device theft, snooping or whatever and it's strongly, strongly suggested that the component be turned off and the device taken to an apple store for checking. That would be a perfect solution - giving the consumer a say in the deactivation of a component of a device they purchased, taking the risks into their own hands of actually saying yea, that's a good idea and getting it checked.

    When Sony disabled Linux installation functionality on the PS3, it was a lawsuit big enough to cause Sony to have to refund PS3 purchases. Sony purposely disabled a component of the PS3 which some people purchased it for, and it was done for nothing but "security" as Sony claimed it was breached by hackers. Was that acceptable?Microsoft has filled Windows 10 with adware and spyware that snoops on the user and dials home information, and forces updates on the consumer for security reasons. Is that acceptable?

    These are similar situations, and frankly it's downright unacceptable to see a company as large as Apple take such an authoritarian approach to a consumer's best interests.
  • Reply 33 of 72
    It's a security feature to stop iOS device thieves from simply changing the Touch ID button and gaining access to all your stuff with any thumbprint somehow.
    Bricking a 700 dollar phone is a "feature". Only in a sheep's mind. Mindless sheep you all are. Apple can kidnap your children and you will probably find a way to defend apple.
    We get it, you don't care about security. We respect that.

    Nothing you are posting is constructive in any way, shape or form. Because of this, you will be ignored by virtually every member here.


    Now take the hint and...go away.
    maxitcornchip
  • Reply 34 of 72
    We get it, you don't care about security. We respect that.

    Nothing you are posting is constructive in any way, shape or form. Because of this, you will be ignored by virtually every member here.


    Now take the hint and...go away.
    There are many ways of securing a phone without destroying it. Such as erasing the phone, including the fingerprint data. But apple is too greedy to do that. And fanboys are too delusional to admit it. They will accept anything apple does, even if it includes destroying their own property. 
    You sold your soul to Google, we sold ours to Apple. Whatever floats your boat.

    Now leave us to our sad, pathetic lives. Buh-bye, now.
    maxit
  • Reply 35 of 72
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    If Apple expects to sell automobiles which have similar "security" features, so that only authorized repair shops can do engine work, reset computers and sensors, maybe even top off the wiper fluid.... they won't be selling any such cars to me.  #GetMeThatSamsungCar

    So let me make sure I understand what you're saying…

    You think it would be okay to take a car with a sophisticated electric engine, computer-controlled navigation and cruise control (possibly self-driving) to Honest Bob's Backyard Repair Shop?

    So I assume then that you would be happy enough to fly on a plane that had been serviced by someone who wasn't authorised to work on it, but had skimmed the Haynes Manual.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 36 of 72
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member

    kiowawa said:
    There is a happy middle ground Apple should be doing. Do that repair and the phone works still, but not Touch ID. That's fair. Bricking is overkill and truly a shame. At some level a phone is a safety device (and in my case a work device) and that is too extreme. Of course I would go to Apple if I could, but what if I am far from the mainstream world (travel, Tanzania, outback Canada, etc)?
    No, bricking is not overkill. Apple cannot assume that the hackers aren't smart enough to access the phone once the touchID is compromised. Never assume you're smarter than the hackers.

    I've said it before: If my phone is stolen and the thief decides to dismantle the finger print reader as a possible way in, then I want that phone bricked beyond any chance of recovery. (And even then I wouldn't assume my data is completely safe).

    I understand that some people are happy to have their phones less secure if it means they can save money on repairs; I just don't happen to be one of them. But then I don't look for the cheapest dentists I can find either.

    edited February 2016 radarthekatchia
  • Reply 37 of 72
    sflocal said:
     but then turn right around and sue the ambulance-chasing lawfirm into oblivion.

    they won't. it would just make them look like assholes. 
  • Reply 38 of 72
    sdbryan said:
    I can easily understand why Apple can and should disable touch ID if it has been compromised by the user's decision to bypass authorized repair service. What is less understandable is having the iPhone rendered utterly unusable.

    A stolen iPhone could conceivably be tampered with to allow the thief to use ApplePay to make purchases which should be Apple's responsibility if it did nothing to defend against this. But I don't understand why a user who doesn't care about TouchID shouldn't be able to continue to use the iPhone sans TouchID due to third party repair.

    I had an iPod touch with a failed lightning port so it could not be recharged. Apple's only solution was to swap it for a pricey rebuilt unit without the contents of my internal drive (I was traveling and did not have a good backup). I found a third party that would replace the lightning port and almost all was well. I was able to back up my data at home.

    You'd be OK with a thief continuing to use your phone and having access to the entire contents of your phone? That's nuts.
  • Reply 39 of 72

    On behalf of its clients, PCVA seeks at least $5 million in damages and restitution for users affected by Error 53 codes, as well as the release of a software update that removes the imposed repair restriction from iOS.
    it will be a cold day in hell before Apple does anything that facilities unauthorized third party repairs. What they will likely do is create a system check that takes place every time the phone is powered on etc and locks the phone right away. So then it will be hella easier for them to say "oh so when did this lock occur, oh right after you paid some cheapo shop to repair your screen. well they broke your phone. sorry dude you better go make them buy you a new one cause your phone is now tampered with and you can't even pay us to do shit"

    i also think that with every software update they should have the terms of service etc written out including the whole tampering thing and you have to put in your apple id password as your 'signature' instead of just hitting agree. with like 5 screens that literally say "by entering your password you are saying that you read the terms and will be held to them even if you lied about reading them'. 
  • Reply 40 of 72
    Rayz2016 said:
    You think it would be okay to take a car with a sophisticated electric engine, computer-controlled navigation and cruise control (possibly self-driving) to Honest Bob's Backyard Repair Shop?

    Uh... this is done all the time. Constantly. Unless you're claiming off a dealer's warranty I don't see why I'd chose to go to the dealer over the far quicker, more honest and frankly better mechanics locally.


    Rayz2016 said:

    So I assume then that you would be happy enough to fly on a plane that had been serviced by someone who wasn't authorised to work on it, but had skimmed the Haynes Manual.

    Regulations for aircraft maintenance are dictated by federal regulation, not corporate. No such regulation exists for consumer electronics.

    You could install a new hard drive in your computer, and Apple could brick the whole thing claiming that it could have compromised data on it, introducing security vulnerabilities as it's not Apple certified. That's entirely possible, and was done by the NSA. Would that be acceptable?


Sign In or Register to comment.