MEXICO CITY (approved) .- Jacobo Najera, an ace of programming and computer code management, acquired 11 November 2014 laptop Lenovo brand, model Yoga II, for its operational functions, capacity and price .
But when trying to uninstall the Windows 10 operating program to use free or unlicensed industrial protection software, it ran into the feature called safe load (secure boot, in English), which prevents such technological maneuvers.
After trying in various ways to remove that component, sought help in the online community of experts, but it was like plowing the sea. Its technological SOS not attracted solutions to computational puzzle of portable machine, number of YB01698352 series and for which it paid 7 000 439 pesos.
“I like to use Debian because it is very safe and functional, and I wanted to install the Lenovo “Najera, member of the Swarm digital collective, dedicated to the promotion and protection of digital rights explains.
the secure boot, he continues, is promoted as a feature to ensure that no illegitimate programs will be installed, which the industry calls pirated software.
Before the blockade, the consumer went to the customer service area of the company. After several exchanges, the corporation responded that because of trade policies could not tell how to delete this role.
Therefore, Najera filed a complaint with the Federal Consumer Protection Agency (Profeco) and, after a floundering several months, defeated the Chinese computer giant, producer of computers and mobile phones, among other devices.
the secure boot is framed in the Interfaces Unified standard Extensible Firmware (UEFI method for short ) that limits the binary files that can be run to start the computer system. On that account, the firmware runs only bootloaders having a cryptographic signature of a known brand.
From version 8 Windows, the Microsoft transnational mogul Bill Gates, instituted that specification by default.
the UEFI is a standard created by the homonymous consortium of more than 140 technology companies, and has been designed to improve software interoperability and solve the limitations of its predecessor, the basic system input and output (BIOS, ALARA), according to the website of Windows. This mode defines the interface between the hardware-the structure, such as the screen, keyboard and mouse-team, and programs with which it works.
The industry points out that among the advantages of UEFI figure greater safety, as it helps to protect the pre-boot the system and start and restart from the idle state faster
“Restrictions on use”
15 January 2015, Najera filed an application with Lenovo PROFECO against Mexico, S. de RL, a subsidiary of china’s Lenovo Group Ltd., by coercive or unfair sales practices entered in the CDF.B.3 / 000247 record -2015, accessed by Apro .
When checking the security of tenure of secure boot, “I rechecked the characteristics of the computer, including the conditions of purchase and it is not is explicit and specified that to be so it would not become computer “quotes the document presented by the accuser.
the dispute recorded two conciliation hearings, the first on 17 April 2015 and which the parties requested time to reach a settlement.
in the second, of June 10 of that year, the legal representative of Lenovo asked to file the case and transfer responsibility to the distributor, but acknowledged that the limiting in the team drift -Default- manufacturing defect
Lenovo engineering report, a page long and practiced by an engineer of the company, supports that point. “the user goes service center and testing is done with the pen drive (USB stick type) client, which does not Botea team for the technology that has factory, USB client itself detects in UEFI mode and still not Botea, is They do tests with other USB created in UEFI mode, and executes the computer. Equipment running without any damage to software or hardware “quotes the document placed on the file.
On June 10 PROFECO initiated proceedings for violations of the law, which gave him 12 days to manufacturer yield evidence and arguments, a right that did not exercise.
in the office DGD / CDF / DS0334 / 2015, of 11 August 2015 and 10 pages long, PROFECO found that the provider did not report so timely consumer of each and every one of the features that had the computer.
“the reference provider managed not prove by any legal means and convincingly that laptop purchased by the consumer side had fully detailed and specified clearly the characteristics of the team, as only he argued that the team worked well, “he argued the authority, who described the behavior as” very serious “.
in this situation, Lenovo must comply “in a timely manner” with the consumer complaint “without causing unnecessary delay and expense for this.”
to PROFECO, are acts contrary to the basic principles of consumer relations contained in the law on Consumer Protection.
therefore concluded that the company violated Article 7 of the Act, which imposed a fine of 4,000 pesos, payable within 45 days after receiving the respective notification.
This penalty should be added to the history of the company.
the corporation, which did not file an appeal for review, was notified on Sept. 7, as stated in the respective card.
But Lenovo may suffer more technological ailments. PROFECO records indicate that in 2015 the company had 29 complaints pending, manufacturing defects, failure to enforce the guarantee or exchange or return; 22 reconciliations manufacturing defect, failure to enforce the guarantee or exchange or return; seven unreconciled for misleading advertising, refusal to enforce the guarantee or exchange or return, seven withdrawals by manufacturing defects and refusal to enforce the guarantee.
The case of Najera is not alone, because other users have experienced the shackles of software protected by private license.
Arturo Montiel, who works in a telecommunications company and attends a bar in the Narvarte colony, acquired in November 2014 an IBM laptop Yoga model Idea pad IIS, loaded with Windows 8.
“I bought it because it is practical, it was a good price, has good ability,” says Apro .
the computer engineer lived the same experience Najera. When he wanted to remove Windows to install free software, he head-on with the secure boot.
“option to remove is not enabled. I researched on internet forums and not found anything. I prefer free software, because it is safer and more efficient, have more options for developers, “he says.
The license terms for Microsoft software bring an element of restriction, they prevent” attempting to circumvent protection measures software “.
Lenovo and Microsoft did not respond to the query Apro .
Zak Rogoff, director of campaigns FSF explains the Yoga line is considered mobile, so they are more likely to have closed systems that prevent users to install their own operating system.
limiting Model
for some years the organizations defending free software have warned of the rigidity of the secure boot.
on 26 March 2013, the Spanish promoter of free software Hispalinux group, consisting of about 8 thousand developers, filed a complaint with the European Commission against Microsoft by the application of secure boot, considering it “obstructive and anticompetitive”.
in October 2011, a coalition led by the Free Software Foundation campaign (FSF, for ALARA) urged technology manufacturers using secure boot to do so would allow the installation of free programs.
“to respect user freedom and truly protect their safety, manufacturers must allow the owners of the devices disable these restrictions or provide a solution to install and run the operating system of free software of their choice “, asked
the signatories., between organizations, academics and users “we are committed to not buy or recommend computers that despoil users of this critical freedom, and actively will urge people in our communities to avoid such jailed systems”
for Rogoff, the reported feature is ” a clear restriction “.
the secure boot” has grown in recent years. If it exists, you must operate so that users can interact with it. We agree with that companies have reliable systems, but the user can decide. Is a threat, because it controls the use of programs and is not in the best interest of the user, “says Rogoff to Apro.
The activist claims that Microsoft uses” crypto violence, “the restrictive boot to prohibit manufacturers that let users install their own operating systems.
the victory of Najera was moral, because the resolution of PROFECO does not require the company to disclose how to remove the secure boot.
“As a consumer, my rights were recognized, but the problem is not resolved. Profeco raised money for the state, but did not affect Lenovo. Today we do not know how Lenovo install this feature and how it is eliminated, “sums Najera.
Your notebook Yoga remains arrumbada at home, impassive witness a global struggle between large corporations, governments and users.
On the other hand, Montiel plans to use the laptop for another year and then sell it. “If I had known that has the secure boot, I do not buy it. It is absurd and invasive that require us to use a heavy schedule. Why is that allowed? “He asks.
As illustrated Rogoff, these cases exposed the tension between free software and proprietary industry as well as the interest of this and users to control their computers.
“users should be aware of the presence of the secure boot and companies must properly explain how you can eliminate” poses
.
No comments:
Post a Comment