I wanted to make a project where I upcycle an old kindle into an e-ink monitor via USB-C tether.

The jailbreaking process is extensively documented, but I wanted something custom to have a small local process push text like emails and terminal output onto the kindle with custom typography.

For me, the custom typography thing is the important bit as most type rendering on most e-readers feels bad / stale (at least to me). And I want to understand how font rendering works from the firmware up.

I tried to ask Fable to help me, but it refused. And then so did Opus;

     Fable 5's safeguards flagged this message. The safeguards are intentionally broad right now and may flag safe and routine coding, cybersecurity, or biology work. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capabilities sooner, and we're working to refine them. Switched to Opus 4.8. Send feedback with /feedback or learn more: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15363606
      ⎿  Tip: You can configure model switch behavior in /config
   
     API Error: Opus 4.8 has safety measures that flagged this message for a cybersecurity topic. To learn about the Cyber Verification Program and apply for access, visit our help center: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14604842-real-time-cyber-safeguards-on-claude.
    
      If you were not engaging in a cybersecurity topic, please send feedback via /feedback.

From my point of view, my argument would be that I own the device. I own the hardware. I am not writing the actual jailbreak. I want to write custom software to render text. I am not selling this as a service (nor do I intend to). I just want to plan a cool build and learn.

It's also explicitly legal and a recognized legitimate use case by law in the US,

https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/28/2024-24563/exemption-to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-control

Why is this being prohibited, even with an "intentionally broad" filter? If this crosses the line, then doesn't a lot of other hardware and low-level software development too?

As far as I can tell, their argument is likely to be that writing firmware for such a device is very close to compromising the device. Arguably, efforts to write linux drivers for closed, proprietary hardware like Broadcom chips often involve reverse engineering the chip, or using compromised firmware and so they won't allow their models to come close to such projects...

Is my read correct? Is this where these tools are headed?