Attempt to repeal Colorado’s right-to-repair law fails

科罗拉多州废除“维修权”法的尝试宣告失败

A controversial bill in Colorado that would have undone some repair protections in the state has failed. The bill had been the target of right-to-repair advocates, who saw it as a bellwether for how tech companies might try to undo repair legislation more broadly in the US. 科罗拉多州一项极具争议的法案近日宣告失败，该法案原本旨在撤销州内部分维修保护措施。此法案一直是被“维修权”倡导者们重点关注的目标，他们将其视为科技公司试图在全美范围内推翻维修立法的一个风向标。

Colorado’s landmark 2024 repair law, the Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment, went into effect in January 2026 and ensured access to tools and documentation people needed to modify and fix digital electronics such as phones, computers, and Wi-Fi routers. 科罗拉多州于2024年通过的里程碑式维修法案——《消费者维修数字电子设备权法案》，已于2026年1月正式生效。该法案确保了公众能够获取修改和维修手机、电脑及Wi-Fi路由器等数字电子产品所需的工具与技术文档。

The new bill, SB26-090, would have carved out an exception to those repair protections for “critical infrastructure,” a loosely defined term that repair advocates worried could be applied to just about any technology. 新法案SB26-090原计划为“关键基础设施”设立维修保护豁免条款。由于“关键基础设施”这一术语定义模糊，维修倡导者们担心它会被滥用，从而涵盖几乎所有的科技产品。

SB26-090 was introduced during a Colorado Senate hearing on April 2 and was supported by lobbying efforts from companies such as Cisco and IBM. It passed that hearing unanimously. The bill then passed in the Colorado Senate on April 16. SB26-090于4月2日在科罗拉多州参议院听证会上被提出，并得到了思科（Cisco）和IBM等公司的游说支持。该法案在听证会上获得全票通过，随后于4月16日在科罗拉多州参议院正式通过。

On Monday evening, the bill was discussed in a long, delayed hearing in the Colorado House’s State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. Dozens of supporters and detractors gave public comments. Finally, the bill was shot down in a 7-to-4 vote and classified as postponed indefinitely. 周一晚间，该法案在科罗拉多州众议院州政、公民、军事及退伍军人事务委员会进行了一场漫长且延期的听证会讨论。数十名支持者和反对者发表了公开意见。最终，该法案以7票对4票被否决，并被归类为“无限期搁置”。

Danny Katz, executive director of the local nonprofit consumer advocacy group CoPIRG, says the battle was a group effort. Speaking against the bill were a cohort of repair advocates from organizations such as PIRG, Repair.org, iFixit, Consumer Reports, and local businesses and environmental groups like Blue Star Recyclers, Recycle Colorado, Environment Colorado, and GreenLatinos. 当地非营利消费者权益组织CoPIRG的执行董事丹尼·卡茨（Danny Katz）表示，这场胜利是集体努力的结果。参与反对该法案的包括来自PIRG、Repair.org、iFixit、消费者报告（Consumer Reports）等组织的维修倡导者，以及Blue Star Recyclers、Recycle Colorado、Environment Colorado和GreenLatinos等当地企业和环保团体。

“While we were making progress at chipping away at the momentum for it, we had still been losing,” Katz wrote in an email to WIRED after the hearing. “So, we took nothing for granted, and I believe the incredible testimony from the broad range of cybersecurity experts, businesses, repair advocates, recyclers, and people who want the freedom to fix their stuff made a big difference.” “虽然我们在削弱该法案的势头方面取得了一些进展，但之前一直处于劣势，”卡茨在听证会后给《连线》（WIRED）杂志的邮件中写道。“因此，我们不敢掉以轻心。我相信来自网络安全专家、企业、维修倡导者、回收商以及渴望拥有维修自由的普通民众所提供的有力证词，发挥了巨大的作用。”

Supporters of the bill, backed by companies like Cisco, had pointed to the potential for cybersecurity risks as their motivation for altering the law’s language. If companies were required to make repair tools available to anyone, the theory goes, what’s to stop bad actors from using those tools to reverse engineer critical technology like Internet routers? Withholding those tools, they posited, would make them less available to hackers who could misuse them. 以思科为首的法案支持者指出，修改法律条款的动机是出于对网络安全风险的担忧。他们的理论是：如果强制要求公司向任何人提供维修工具，那么谁能阻止不法分子利用这些工具对互联网路由器等关键技术进行逆向工程呢？他们认为，限制这些工具的获取，可以减少黑客滥用这些技术的机会。

Advocates of the bill said that companies should be allowed to keep their secrets if it ensured security, though that argument starts to fall apart with a little scrutiny. At one point in the hearing, Democrat Chad Clifford, a Colorado state representative and the House committee’s vice chair who was also a prime sponsor of the bill, pointed to what appeared to be a reference to Cloudflare’s very public use of a wall of lava lamps to help randomize Internet encryption, citing that as an example of the need for sensitive systems to be inscrutable to be secure. 法案的支持者认为，如果为了确保安全，公司理应被允许保守秘密，尽管这一论点经不起推敲。在听证会期间，该法案的主要发起人、科罗拉多州众议员兼众议院委员会副主席、民主党人查德·克利福德（Chad Clifford）曾提到Cloudflare公司利用“熔岩灯墙”来辅助互联网加密随机化的著名案例，以此作为敏感系统必须保持“不可窥探”才能确保安全的例证。

“I don’t know why anybody has to have lava lamps on a wall to keep the Chinese from getting into a network, but it’s what they came up with that worked,” Clifford said. “How they do that, I believe they should be able to keep it a secret, even in Colorado.” “我不知道为什么有人非得在墙上挂熔岩灯来防止中国人入侵网络，但这是他们想出的有效办法，”克利福德说。“至于他们是如何做到的，我认为他们有权保守秘密，即使是在科罗拉多州。”

The problem with that argument, as cybersecurity experts pointed out during the hearing, is that the vast majority of hacks are not carried out via replacement parts or by taking apart individual machines. They’re remote hacks, where the attacker makes changes in real time, and the people defending have to make changes on the fly without worrying about acquiring permission from the company that makes the equipment. 正如网络安全专家在听证会上指出的那样，这一论点的漏洞在于，绝大多数黑客攻击并非通过更换零件或拆解单台机器来实现。它们通常是远程攻击，攻击者实时进行篡改，而防御者必须在不担心获取设备制造商许可的情况下，即时做出应对。

“There is no time,” cybersecurity expert and white hat hacker Billy Rios said during the hearing. “It doesn’t work that way.” “根本没有时间（去申请许可），”网络安全专家兼白帽黑客比利·里奥斯（Billy Rios）在听证会上说。“现实情况并非如此。”

Besides the cybersecurity argument, the other point of contention was the economics of angering the big tech companies that have invested in the state. “They’re not going to comply and give away the keys to their kingdom for the things that are securing billions of dollars of interest for their customers over the law that we passed,” Clifford said. “What they’re going to do is just not have commerce on those items here.” 除了网络安全方面的争论，另一个争议点是激怒在州内有投资的大型科技公司所带来的经济后果。“他们不会为了我们通过的法律而妥协，交出那些为客户保障数十亿美元利益的‘王国钥匙’，”克利福德说。“他们会做的只是停止在本地销售这些产品。”

That argument didn’t carry enough weight to change the vote in supporters’ favor. By the end of the hearing, it was clear that everyone was exhausted and not entirely clear on how exactly the new bill and amendments would pan out. 这一论点并未产生足够的影响力来扭转投票结果。听证会结束时，显而易见所有人都已精疲力竭，且对于新法案及修正案最终将如何实施仍存疑虑。

“What are we really trying to do here?” said Colorado Representative Naquetta Ricks in her no vote at the end of the hearing. “Are we protecting just one company, or are we looking at really critical infrastructure? I’m not convinced.” “我们到底想在这里做什么？”科罗拉多州众议员纳奎塔·里克斯（Naquetta Ricks）在听证会结束时投下反对票时说道。“我们是在保护某一家公司，还是在审视真正的关键基础设施？我对此并不信服。”

Nathan Proctor, senior director of US PIRG’s Campaign for the Right to Repair, said he was relieved to see lawmakers understand that repair isn’t inherently dangerous. But he knows this isn’t over. He fully expects lobbyists to keep up the fight in Colorado and more broadly. He points to recent repair laws in other states like Iowa and to the increasing number of states considering repair legislation, readying up for the inevitable battles there, too. 美国PIRG“维修权”运动高级总监内森·普罗克特（Nathan Proctor）表示，他很欣慰看到立法者们理解了“维修本身并不危险”这一事实。但他深知战斗尚未结束。他完全预料到游说团体会在科罗拉多州乃至更广泛的范围内继续抗争。他提到了爱荷华州等其他州近期通过的维修法案，以及越来越多的州正在考虑相关立法，并已准备好迎接那里不可避免的博弈。

“The fact of the matter is, unfixable stuff is everywhere,” Proctor wrote. “This is a widespread problem, and it requires a widespread response.” “事实是，无法维修的产品无处不在，”普罗克特写道。“这是一个普遍存在的问题，需要一个广泛的应对方案。”