Item — HN Reader

> So, how will this help with things like fake SD cards? Those are usually sold unbranded.

How can an unbranded SD card be fake? Fake with respect to what?

A brand brings this value: expectations.

If I buy a no-brand item, I'm not sure what expectations I can have, and I'm not sure I can even claim that it's a fake, since I have no reference point as "the true item".

I mean that's literally the biggest value that a brand brings to you, the consumer.

That's also why brands work hard to build up and maintain good reputations.

2 comments

> How can an unbranded SD card be fake? Fake with respect to what?

In respect to not being the claimed capacity, but modified in a data-destroying way to make that difficult to detect:

https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1326059# (from 2015, capacities have obviously changed since then):

> Tests by the Counterfeit Report found that the cards will work at first, but generally speaking, buyers are purchasing what they think are cards with capacities of 32GB and up. Instead they are getting are cards with 7GB capacity. Counterfeiters simply overwrite the real memory capacity with a false capacity to match any capacity and model they print on the counterfeit packaging and card, Crosby explained. Users can’t determine the actual memory capacity of a counterfeit memory card by simply plugging it into their computer, phone, or camera. When the user hits the limit, the phony card starts overwriting files, which leads to lost data.

> The Counterfeit Report often comes across cards in capacities that don’t exist in any product line, and the cards it purchases and tests that are 32GB and up are usually always fake. The counterfeiters make a great profit on the fake cards, and there’s no consequence.

Please see my reply in sibling comment. It addresses this.

A fake SD card is one that doesn't store all the data it claims to. There are SD cards on Amazon that claim to store 64 GB (or whatever), but they really store a fraction of that, with firmware that lies to the user and corrupts the data they try to store beyond the actual capacity.

What you are describing is quite orthogonal to brands: it is simply fraud, ie selling something with specs that you know are bogus. I've seen it called "false advertising" too.

That is exactly what a brand is supposed to protect you against: if a reputable brand is caught doing this, it won't take long for its reputation to go down the drain.

You won't see many reputable brands engage in this, and that also explains why they rightfully complain when someone else uses their brand to push their bogus products, as their reputation can take a hit due to a malicious player.

Intellectual Property protection around brands (brand names, logos, etc...) is serious business.

There's a lot of confusion about various types of more or less dishonest market behavior. I get downvoted every time I point out that it makes no sense to call bootleg books and movies "counterfeit".

There are a few problems a listing might have:

- Product not as advertised.

- Product as advertised, but not made by the asserted manufacturer.

- Product as advertised, but vendor doesn't have the legal right to sell it.

#1 is just fraud, and defrauds the customer. #2 is a trademark violation, and defrauds the customer without the customer suffering harm. #3 is a copyright violation, and defrauds the copyright holder.

Consumer advocates should worry about #1 and to a lesser extent #2. Most policy debate seems to focus on #3. But #2 is what's at issue here, so hey, progress.

> defrauds the customer without the customer suffering harm

How does that work? I don't think this position is defensible, and I also don't think this is what's happening: the customer is defrauded by bearing a risk they did not choose.

It's stipulated that the risk cannot hurt them. The risk you describe is that they don't know whether they're getting what they want or not. But if they're not, that is the first category, product not as described.

In that light, I cannot see how it's different than "not as described". If there is no damage (no one can be hurt), then this does not deserve to be called fraud. Any mitigation would also be wrong on the grounds of wasting time and resources for zero benefit.

If it’s advertised as being made by Sony but it’s not made but Sony, how can it be “as advertised”?

You asked how an unbranded SD card can be fake, and they explained. I think the "reference point for a true item" would be an SD card with the advertised amount of storage, regardless of branding.

> There are SD cards on Amazon that claim to store 64 GB (or whatever), but they really store a fraction of that, with firmware that lies to the user and corrupts the data they try to store beyond the actual capacity.

I wonder: is it possible for an operating system or filesystem to prevent this from happening?