Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware (vice.com) 500
Tractor owners across the country are reportedly hacking their John Deere tractors using firmware that's cracked in Easter Europe and traded on invite-only, paid online forums. The reason is because John Deere and other manufacturers have "made it impossible to perform 'unauthorized' repair on farm equipment," which has obviously upset many farmers who see it "as an attack on their sovereignty and quite possibly an existential threat to their livelihood if their tractor breaks at an inopportune time," reports Jason Koebler via Motherboard. As is the case with most modern-day engineering vehicles, the mechanical problems experienced with the newer farming tractors are often remedied via software. From the report: The nightmare scenario, and a fear I heard expressed over and over again in talking with farmers, is that John Deere could remotely shut down a tractor and there wouldn't be anything a farmer could do about it. A license agreement John Deere required farmers to sign in October forbids nearly all repair and modification to farming equipment, and prevents farmers from suing for "crop loss, lost profits, loss of goodwill, loss of use of equipment [...] arising from the performance or non-performance of any aspect of the software." The agreement applies to anyone who turns the key or otherwise uses a John Deere tractor with embedded software. It means that only John Deere dealerships and "authorized" repair shops can work on newer tractors. "If a farmer bought the tractor, he should be able to do whatever he wants with it," Kevin Kenney, a farmer and right-to-repair advocate in Nebraska, told me. "You want to replace a transmission and you take it to an independent mechanic -- he can put in the new transmission but the tractor can't drive out of the shop. Deere charges $230, plus $130 an hour for a technician to drive out and plug a connector into their USB port to authorize the part." "What you've got is technicians running around here with cracked Ukrainian John Deere software that they bought off the black market," he added.
Tractor Users, not Owners (Score:5, Funny)
As is the case with most tech products, they try to reduce you to a user, not an owner. Maybe the farmers were tired of the tractor stopping in the middle of the field, and starting projecting ads on the windscreen while downloading an upgrade.
Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bearing in mind that the summary talks about not being able to take a machine to an independent mechanic to have a transmission replaced I'd guess few to none, unless independent mechanics somehow charge for neither time nor parts.
Re:John Deere Isn't The Only Manufacturer of Tract (Score:4, Informative)
I'd imagine no-one would want to buy a used tractor with these restrictions - hell, reselling one may well be against the licensing agreement.
A search engine indicates that New Holland seem to have a similar market share to John Deere, and that there are several other smaller manufacturers. Why would anyone buy John Deere under these circumstances?
Re:John Deere Isn't The Only Manufacturer of Tract (Score:5, Informative)
The high end tractors they are really talking about are only available from 2 manufacturers. Modern Farmers are going to pull a chisel point plow, Disk Rippers, Clump busters and a cultipacker 60 feet wide in one pass over 5,000 acres, with a tractor that has 500 drawbar HP; next day pull a planter 120 feet wide.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably less than manufacturers wanting tractor users to pay through the nose for unnecessary "services" and "repairs" that the mechanic's teenage boy can do for a box of sodas.
Re: (Score:3)
Where I'm from, you'd hand him a crate of beer, but you Americans and your fear of anyone under the age of like 80 drinking alcohol...
Like your beer qualifies as alcohol! Or as beer, for that matter!
Re:Tractor investors, not breakers. (Score:3)
For a farmer a tractor is a very big investment and much of their success as a farmer is riding on it (sorry for the pun).
So I don't think a sane farmer will want to do anything to it that would ruin it.
Sure you allways will find some counter examples, like some people that first by a Mercedes S class and then run into all kind of issues with it because they are too cheap to have it properly maintained.
BTW one could make the same reasoning for normal cars: "Gee I'm fed up with all those cars comming in for
Re: (Score:3)
Sure you allways will find some counter examples, like some people that first by a Mercedes S class and then run into all kind of issues with it because they are too cheap to have it properly maintained.
They run into all kinds of issues because, like all luxury cars, it's designed to last about five years tops and then fall the fuck apart so that you buy another one. The last one designed to last was the W126, but even it doesn't because they also pioneered biodegradable wiring harnesses at the same time. The window wiring fails where it flexes, and lots of other problems which are basically the same exist. The W140 is legendary for wiring problems. And every Mercedes since then is built just like every ot
Re:Tractor investors, not breakers. (Score:5, Informative)
That's Jalopnik, a site that has decided that every single part of any German car will fail every five minutes and will cost $1 million to replace
They are essentially correct. Check out for example the typical longevity of and replacement cost for the vaunted S-Class air suspension. The parts are still too new to chance getting from third parties, so you have to go to the dealer. If you don't have a very good relationship with them, you're into thousands per corner.
despite the fact that their conclusions are mostly based on a small number of American-market models with a very shady service history and lots of aftermarket parts
You should be able to buy aftermarket parts. If the design requires insanely fancy-pants parts, it's not a good one. For example, the chain tensioners in the 40V 4.2 liter Audi V8. The 32V engine doesn't have VVT, so it doesn't have them, and it's considerably more durable as a result. Both have the same stupid Flennor/Gates timing belt with a 60k lifespan. California mandates that timing belts have a 90k lifespan, Audi said "sure whatever" and rated it for 90k. It's the same belt. Chains or gears forever. But that's apparently too noisy for luxury. I'd be better off with a LS motor, which has none of these considerations and yet is just as efficient.
in the real world, German cars tend to be the most reliable
They tend to be the most expensive. That is, they require a lot of dollars invested to make them reliable. I've got a full service history on a 1997 A8 Quattro to show how and why that is the case. In spite of that I've been going through an epic to transfer its transmission into a 1998 that I got as a parts car. It's got half the miles on it, and it's in nicer condition in general inside and out. If I weren't capable of doing this stuff myself, it would make more sense to just buy something else, because it would cost too much to have it done even by an independent mechanic to justify given the low, low value of the vehicle. And its value is in turn low not just because of its age, but because of the expense in servicing it.
The average person would love to be driving something like this around now that it's been handed down from someone who could afford to absorb the expense of its initial depreciation, but they can't afford the maintenance to keep it from disintegrating. It's two hundred bucks in crankcase vent breather hoses I worked around with silicone hose and a right angle fitting, and thirty bucks for a little y-shaped vacuum hose I went ahead and bought, and the headrests don't go up and down because the drive flex cable jacket stretched over time due to heat cycling and has to be shortened and the rear sun shade has come unglued and is catching on the rear parcel shelf and the arm rests tend to crack and Audi would like a thousand dollars for one but you can often pick up a pair of them from the facelift model for a couple hundred and the list goes ever on and on.
I've been talking about Audi for a long while, but I also own a 1982 Mercedes-Benz 300SD (W126) and guess what? Mercedes is doing its level best to kill off the platform. You can get basically all the parts for cars which are older than the W126 from the Mercedes Classics parts program, but there are a number of parts for the W126 which you can no longer get new from anyone for any price. The primary example which is going to kill off these cars is the locks. Mercedes does not sell ignition locks at all any more, and an otherwise fully matched lock set will set you back painfully. No one is re-keying these locks or making fresh keys, either, but that doesn't really matter because while it had at the time the strongest column lock ever devised for a production auto, the lock itself is beyond flimsy. It also only took me about an hour and a half to figure out how to remove a completely failed and jammed lock and column locking mechanism from my car and then do it start to finis
Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you modify the tractor in a way that is unsupported by the manufacturer, you void the warranty and John Deere is released from responsibility. It's not at all unlike your TV, or your cell phone, or millions of other products on the market.
The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 disagrees with you. Go read it.
Re:Tractor Users, not Owners (Score:5, Interesting)
John Deere by no means has a monopoly on farm equipment. If I was a farmer, I think this would make Deere completely unattractive. Heavy machinery like this has a pretty tough duty cycle and things break. Cost aside, Farmers often don't have the luxury of time to wait while they have a piece of equipment serviced by a limited number of authorized dealers. Having the option to use an independent mechanic or to (gasp!) fix it themselves would seem like a must have.
I'm not a farmer, but I do have a small Deere diesel tractor that I use for mowing, digging fence post holes, carrying around mulch/dirt/etc. I bought it years ago, but if I were in the market for a new one I now have a reason to avoid Deere.
John Deere has too many non farmers (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with a company like John Deere is they loose touch with their customers. John Deere obviously forgot that they service the farmer not the other way around. This too me would have a negative affect on new equipment purchases as well. Growing up in a farming community I know that many farmers do a lot of their own maintenance on equipment. Like any of us saving a little money and avoiding driving that big tractor to a dealer seems like a no brainer. Sadly this kind of behavior is happening to cars and trucks too, where the manufacture wants to lock the DIY out of fixing their cars.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with a company like John Deere is they loose touch with their customers.
Seems to me they have their customers in a fairly tight grip, by the balls, one could even say.
Re:John Deere has too many non farmers (Score:5, Informative)
Seems to me they have their customers in a fairly tight grip, by the balls, one could even say.
Actual truth. I grew up in a county that was heavy farming with a city industrial base, the friend I had in high school who were in farming families and are still doing it and many of them have long since moved off Deere equipment. Most are using either Fendt or Mahindra simply because of what you're talking about. Dropping $90k(CAD) for a base model Deere is what drove people away from them. The bullshit they're pulling now is just driving them to their competition, especially when you can get the same from a rival company for 1/3 or less with exactly the same warranty coverage.
Re:John Deere has too many non farmers (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with a company like John Deere is they loose touch with their customers. John Deere obviously forgot that they service the farmer not the other way around. This too me would have a negative affect on new equipment purchases as well. Growing up in a farming community I know that many farmers do a lot of their own maintenance on equipment. Like any of us saving a little money and avoiding driving that big tractor to a dealer seems like a no brainer. Sadly this kind of behavior is happening to cars and trucks too, where the manufacture wants to lock the DIY out of fixing their cars.
I am in the auto industry. Perhaps I can explain John Deere. They are trying to become a services company. They see autonomous vehicles on the horizon and the impact on individual ownership. They are making plans to move to a shared services model for their equipment. This is beginning. But, they're clearly jumping the gun. It's too bad the farmers don't wake up and buy a different brand.
Re:John Deere has too many non farmers (Score:4, Insightful)
No John Deere is doing exactly what they planned when they got the GOP congress to put in an obscure clause into a funding bill that exempted Tractors from the repair requirements that automobiles have. This allowed John Deere to completely restrict access to repairs and to have the full force of the law behind them in doing so. With the computerization of all mechanical objects and a little DMCA thrown in they now have complete control over every tractor they've sold.
This was a GOP initiated change to law at the request of John Deere. And it's fucking over their own constituency. Remember that the next time you vote.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no Federal law regarding repair requirements for automobiles or tractors. The only relevant law is one passed in 1990 that required computer monitoring of emissions and, in turn, required that independent shops be able to access the data.
Both major parties have had control at various times, and neither of them was able to get such a law passed. You have been deceived into becoming a loyal low-information Democratic voter.
Re:John Deere has too many non farmers (Score:4, Informative)
Since the arrival of the automobile several federal laws have been passed. The earliest laws prohibited manufacturers from requiring repairs by the dealer, required manufacturers to make parts available and prevented manufacturers from restricting access to repair information and diagrams and also probhited sales contracts that required dealer repairs. In the 70's the Magnuson warranty act prohibited manufactures from voiding warranties for repair work not done by the dealers. In the 90's these laws were expanded to prevent manufacturers from using software as a partial weapon (the software rules should have went much further and prevented any DMCA enforcement and even voided copyright restrictions on modification to equipment you own) to get around the previous restrictions and was included in the emissions law.
Tractors were included in all of these laws excepting the emissions requirements up until a few years ago when the Republican controlled congress deliberately exempted farming equipment with a small change (as part of a unrelated government funding bill) from the prior federal laws. This allowed John Deere to start enforcing all these draconian restrictions that congress had prior to this deliberately prevented and Deere can now can even force purchasers to sign contracts during purchase forcing them to use dealers and even allowing the manufacturer to disable the equipment at a later date as part of these contracts. Prior to the laws revision these contract terms would have been illegal and unenforceable.
The only low information voter is you and your ignorance of federal law that protects you from being forced to use the dealer for your car service. I'd blame the Democrats for this if they'd been involved as I'm NOT a partisan tribalist which to assholes like you means I'm with the opposite tribe. I'd be a millionaire if I got a $1 for every time I'd been accused of being a Democrat or Republican because I've got an opinion on an issue and the relevant tribe is on the other side.
Re: (Score:3)
John Deere knows exactly who their customers are. They are corporate farms that buy tractors by the dozen. The newest tractors cost
It's the reason you're starting to see a lot of other small tractor companies like Mahindra and Kubota come in and cover the space that Deere used to sell to.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah that's not the case. In some places, especially here in North America you run into "credit union" allowances which allow you to get steep discounts to farming equipment(new and used). Deere has cut deals with some of these, their competition is doing the same now. They've(deere) really cut their own balls off over it, because their competition can take the bite in many cases because of the mnfg cost of their product.
Re: (Score:3)
I just did a bit of web searching on this topic. It appears that John Deere has been losing market share in the farm equipment sector for years now -- so apparently, farmers are indeed moving to its competitors. It's bad enough that JD is moving more of their focus to construction equipment and away from farming equipment.
Easter Europe... (Score:3, Funny)
I've always wanted to visit Easter Europe, but can't find it on a map...
Re:Easter Europe... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't bother, it's perpetually closed for the holidays.
Re: (Score:3)
Easter (Score:5, Funny)
hacking their John Deere tractors using firmware that's cracked in Easter Europe
Let's hope there are no Easter Eggs in there.
Open Tractor(tm) (Score:5, Insightful)
Time for competition to form the Open Tractor consortium. Components chosen for easy market access, easy repair and open source firmware. Tractor design for easy component access, with signature checks and protected registering for sabotage prevention. "I didn't change the autonomous driving and insecticide spreading components. Why does it tell me so? Aha, hackers employed by the envious cousin, next farm!"
Re:Open Tractor(tm) (Score:5, Interesting)
The easier solution was already mentioned in the summary: support the Right to Repair bill, in any state, if your state has made one. This doesn't overnight solve the problems and John Deere would probably just pull a TiVo and lock the software and it is business as usual. And expect pushback from the vendors when it comes to these new bills but it is the first step to taking back ownership rather than "licensing" your use of a tractor.
At least there's a way around it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Deere is trying to make themselves into a "one-stop" company where you're forced to get everything from them. Auto companies tried the same thing in the late 90's and laws were enacted over it because JP, SK, EU and NA automakers all tried to do it. They're trying again with the new versions of OBD's, luckily they're mainly running up against the law and can't. No such real coverage for farmers, but there is good competition. There was a lot of yelling over this last year at the Canada's Outdoor Farm Sh
Use Mahindra & Mahindra (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Use Mahindra & Mahindra (Score:5, Informative)
I work in AG, and this is not true at all. Mahindra has all the same ECU's and tech other tractors have, its required for Tier 4 emissions. From what I've seen their tech is vastly more simplistic. The diagnostic abilities of their stuff is extremely limited where it just throws a code rather than giving data streams from the different subsystems.
Re: (Score:3)
Mahindra has a nice looking 105Hp model for $63,440, but if you need something in the 642Hp range at $642,000, you're not going to find it there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What does "buy American" mean though? Mahindra is an Indian brand, but makes most of their US-sold tractors in the United States. John Deere is a US brand, but manufacturers tractors and parts all over the world.
Same thing goes with automobiles. Is that US brand vehicle made in Mexico American? Or is the Japanese brand made in the US?
Or is your American-based Apple iPhone that's made in China by a Tai
Re: (Score:3)
But then you've just wasted 4 hours of your day and prevented your neighbor, Joe, from getting commission so you've wasted his 4 hours too. To John Deere, there's no loss - you weren't going to buy that tractor to begin with. The dealership lost $30 in Joe's time and incremental costs (copying and such) since they pretty much just pay him on commission and the office would have been open anyway. Nobody cares except you, who now don't have the new tractor you need, and Joe, who just lost 1/10 of his weekly p
Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
The more this shit spreads out from the software world, the sooner it ends.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
The more this shit spreads out from the software world, the sooner it ends.
A farmer buys a tractor so he can farm, not so he can become a continuing revenue stream for John Deere.
The lesson for Deere is that if you squeeze the customer too hard, he goes elsewhere to relieve the pain.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The same can be applied to any business. Every used big iron, or the so-called midrange systems that run the world's financial systems? They're milked to death by annual fees, regardless of "updates". Got more CPUs? Cost goes up. Got more storage? Cost goes up. Even MS are happy on this model, and you can bet Apple are itching at it when they have a product that doesn't require buying new. The whole world is moving to rental or sucking blood on a monthly basis.
Purchased Adobe software recently? No, you can'
Common Economic problem (Score:5, Interesting)
As an engineer in a big multi-national I also see similar things going on in our company.
They try to prevent untrained/unauthorized technicians from doing what we call "low-level" maintenance even though our equipment might be of vital importance of that buyer.
In our company this is not necessary bad intent towards the customer, but more a way of protection our own business because selling only gives you 1 paycheck, service gives you hundreds in the course of years.
Our machines are pretty comparable in complexity to modern tractors I believe as years of research and development have made it so they are of higher quality for the customer. This does not immediately relate to longer life times of our products but does improve on requirements because of new industry, government & environmental standards.
But it also makes it harder to do a correct maintenance if you don't know the complete working of the machines.
Anyways, I don't want to justify John Deer's way of working, or any other car manufacturer ( because that seems to be the case here in Europe), but I do understand their position better.
The customer should be informed when they buy a product that their new product can only be maintained by the approved technicians, there for the EULA probably that has been forced onto the farmers.
I also don't know how the market competition is for farming vehicles in USA, Europe or the rest of the world.
And I think that part should be fixed then, if there is no (reasonable) competition/alternative for the farmers then there is a problem there.
Re:Common Economic problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Common Economic problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but there is exactly NO reason to need a "specialist" to make an oil change or switch out a spark plug. There is also no technical reason to put the electronics behind an encrypted access instead of creating an open standard.
Yes, there's more money in services and vendor lock-in. That doesn't mean I have to understand or even support such practices. It's despicable, and I only use that world to remain civil.
I can understand when you say that you don't want to be liable for shoddy service and faulty maintenance, but disallowing it altogether is NOT the way to go. It's trivial to create relevant seals for physical service and signatures for electronic maintenance to identify "official" service work from "self serviced" machines, and void certain (extended) warranty promises if someone you didn't approve monkey wrenched the machine.
It's been that way for a long while with cars now. Some extended warranties only apply if you keep going to the official service partners and have them change your oil in the prescribed intervals and have them do all inspections, along with doing all the repairs they require to sign off your service booklet.
But the ultimate choice of whether to go with the official service and enjoy the extended warranty promise or to waive it and fix your own gear is up to the owner. And yes, I do consider the person paying good money for your product the OWNER of the product from the moment of PURCHASE.
Re: (Score:3)
In our company this is not necessary bad intent towards the customer, but more a way of protection our own business because selling only gives you 1 paycheck, service gives you hundreds in the course of years.
How is that not "bad intent towards the customer?"
Legislation & the right to repair (Score:5, Informative)
In Europe there is legislation coming into effect in July 2021 which will requires OEMs to provide information to 3rd parts service tool manufacturers and Independent Operators such that they can achieve the same level of diagnostic capability as the OEM with their own tools.
See links like:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal... [europa.eu]
http://www.cema-agri.org/publi... [cema-agri.org]
In the U.S. there is no equivalent legislation in the U.S., but I would not be surprised if we see something similar in a few years. There are groups lobbying to this end, such as;
http://repair.org/association/ [repair.org]
Disclaimer: I work for one of the 'other' Ag manufacturers on the topic of making the machines comply with this legislation
You're not locked in (Score:3)
So... just buy something not John Deere... I mean, the logo on the equipment won't match your cap (which is free advertising for the company you seem to not like) but hey...
A John Deer bonfire... (Score:5, Interesting)
Farmers should organize an event to burn old non repairable John Deer equipment and advertise their purchase of non John Deer equipment. And further sell t-shirts about how John Deer is no friend to the American farmer. Do this at the Forth of July celebrations. And have town hall meetings with speakers telling their Horror Stories about John Deer. Find another manufacturer and help promote them over John Deer. Some of them might even give you a deal on a trade in if you publicly destroy your John Deer. Do not stop until everyone currently on the board of directors and otherwise that are running the company are completely replaced.
In the meantime get the right to repair laws on the books.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone seems focused on the farmers and their poor little butthurt selves.
What about the downstream cost? These failures reduce productivity and thus increase the cost of food. They draw money to John Deere for no value-add (rent-seeking). These things reduce the total number of products you can buy with your money (wealth), and reduce the number of people receiving (jobs) the money spent for a given investment of labor-hours (wages).
The inefficiencies of requiring a tech to stop by just to sign-of
Perpetuation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perpetuation (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it would be in the other tractor manufacturer's interest to bring their tractors out to the farms for demos (if they don't already) and make sure they talk up the reparability of the unit. The other tractor manufacturers have to realize that a professional, well trained repair staff that gives accurate (non chiseling) repair estimates is going to go a lot further with the farmers that buy and use their products than the attempted lock-in of John Deere.
Re:Perpetuation (Score:4, Informative)
How proprietary, what most think if a tractor is 25-100 Hp , everybody and there brother sells one $10.000-50,000), what most people think of as a big tractor is 100-175 Hp range $100,000-175,000 and they numerous manufactures, what a Farmer thinks of as a big tractor is 450-642Hp and is in the neighborhood of a $1/2 million, there 2 manufactures.
They're Modding to Increase HP (Score:3)
Having said that, there is no way that JD should be able to control the owner of the equipment in the fashion that they do. If the farmers want to mod, they should be able to. Whether it's a good idea or not. It should be the owner's decision.
Hacking the Food Supply (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
well (Score:3)
Actually very few farmers own their own tractors any. At least the high end models. There almost all leased. They are simply to expensive to purchase outright.
Buy Soviet Union Tractors (Score:3)
Check the stats, first, please... (Score:3)
In 2012, 75% of the 2 million farms in the US produced a paltry three percent of total revenue. In fact, their average annual income was less than $40k per farm, and most of that was from "non-farm" income, like subsidies, retirement income, etc. The dismal data is here. [usda.gov]
John Deere couldn't care less about those farmers -- the money obviously lies elsewhere. And exactly where is that? In the three percent of farms (classed "large" or "very large" by the US Dept of Agriculture) that accounted for a whopping 52 percent of all production and 66.4% of agricultural revenue in the US.
So -- John Deere isn't going to worry about a bunch of hayseeds hacking their tractors -- they are not a significant revenue source now, and based on concentration trends in the US agriculture market, they are going to disappear entirely.
Marx was right about one thing -- owning the means of production (he called it "tools"; we call it hardware, now) is the key to capitalist success, and in a largely mechanized and automated industry like agriculture, that means owning the software, and through it, the hardware. John Deere has apparently grokked it rightly, as well.
If I were a farmer, here's what I'd do. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd research alternatives to John Deere. I think there are actually some, right? If there are, I'd go to the Deere dealers first. I'd take my time, chat up the sales guy, get all the way to what looks like a closed sale. Then just as I'm about to sign I'd back out and tell him why. Waste their sales guy's time, and tell all your buddies to do it too.
If all of the companies are pulling this shit, it might be time for another tractorcade like we had in the 70s. Block the Beltway and turn up the turf on the Mall like they did back then. Maybe that'll get their attention.
Re:Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely, liability is way more important that get things done. I guess that's why electronics has become a golden cage and the times of hacking ataris/commodore/spectrums is long gone. That's what's making society dumber.
Re: Liability (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
My job description says my place in society is to hack equipment I did not design or develop.
May I be present when you discuss with my CEO why his CISO can't pentest and risk assess the tools he's supposed to roll out company-wide?
Re: Liability (Score:5, Funny)
He's either somebody you meet at a stag party, or the guy your aunt eloped with.
Re: (Score:3)
But see if i get an add in card that isnt made by asus, and i can get it to work, without their help just fine. i dont have to pay asus to come out and give me permission to use it on a piece of hardware i bought, you see where your comment becomes the backwards shit seen here every day. complain one day that you cant modify your own stuff. the next day you say its not safe for other people to modify their stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Almost no one is complaining about not being able to hack computer hardware; you still can really (it's much harder than before), but no one wants to because there's no need for it.
What they're complaining about is the software and firmware. That's the whole point of the RPi you pointed out: no one cares about modifying the base PCB, but they're having all kinds of fun messing with the open-source software, and also adding on hardware using the existing interface ports.
Re: Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Bollocks.
If you buy property is yours you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
Regarding the restrictive "contract" the farmer has to sign, that should be illegal.
One possible way around might be if the farmer's wife buys tractor, then farmer's wife sells tractor to farmer. Farmer is not then bound to the contract someone else signed for property he bought from his wife on the second hand market.
I'm British and very economically left wing (no not liberal in any sense of the word) but private property belongs to you not the shitty corporation that made it. Corporations have too much power thanks to liberal economics.
Re: (Score:3)
Bollocks.
If you buy property is yours you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
Regarding the restrictive "contract" the farmer has to sign, that should be illegal.
One possible way around might be if the farmer's wife buys tractor, then farmer's wife sells tractor to farmer. Farmer is not then bound to the contract someone else signed for property he bought from his wife on the second hand market.
I'm British and very economically left wing (no not liberal in any sense of the word) but private property belongs to you not the shitty corporation that made it. Corporations have too much power thanks to liberal economics.
No you bought a copy. You only bought the right to use the tracker. THe real tracker is one inside John Deere. :-)
THis is how Microsoft make their EULA with DOS/Windows. Basically you do not really buy Windows. You buy a right to use it and the goodness of MS to include a copy but not really the real WIndows etc.
Lawyers fascinate me
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. If you disagree, you're free to take it up in court with John Deere/Microsoft/etc. Good luck with that.
The better alternative is to simply not buy from these companies.
Re: Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
The US definition of "liberal" and "conservative" are going the way their definition of "socialist" went a long time ago: The gutter.
They define it by the loonie fringe groups. Being a liberal means that you're somehow in SJW territory, and being conservative means you have to agree with the Westboro Baptist Church bullshit. The idea that most people belong to NEITHER camp but are actually moderates, close to the center and generally ok with accepting some things the "other side" has to say and give it at least a whirl as a thought experiment, i.e. the notion that it could actually be that the "opponent" is RIGHT with some of the things he's saying, that's become a completely alien concept.
Because if you don't toe the party line and drink the cool-aid, you're one of THEM!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Left/Right divide has gotten ridiculous, to the point where being a moderate makes you the enemy of just about everyone.
Re: Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot be moderate.
You're instantly lumped into one side. Say you don't agree with something Trump said and you have to be a SJW. Say that no, you don't think their position is true, get asked why you hate minorities and how long you've been a member of the KKK. Explain that you sure as hell don't agree with the alt-right (whatever that may mean now, anyway, since nobody ever really explained to me what alt-right really meant, and whether it's the opposite of ctrl-left, which doesn't do anything either, at least on my keyboard... but I ramble) and we're back at being asked whether you enjoy sucking Laci Green's femdick and how much money you dumped on Sarkeesian.
And don't you DARE to say that you don't care much about either of them. At best, the board moderator will block you for a week for starting a flame war...
Not wanting any part of that mudslinging just isn't possible anymore. Not being part of one bullshit movement automatically means you MUST be in the other, equally insane, one.
Re: Liability (Score:5, Interesting)
The US (and not just them, that cancer is spreading) has to relearn that politics is not a matter of black and white (and no, I don't mean it in any racial sense, dammit!). Politics is a lot of shades of grey and you can actually think that one idea from politician A is good while you disagree with his position on topic B and think that someone from a different political spectrum is right. That is actually possible!
Also, disagreeing with A doesn't mean that you agree with B. I think Hillary is a despicable bitch who is by no means in touch with anything that matters to the average Joe out there, but that doesn't mean that I think that Trump has all the answers. Or Sanders for that matter. I do think that skin color, heritage, upbringing or gender should not matter when it comes to your chance to accomplish anything, but that does neither mean that I think we should wallow in collective white guilt and bend over backwards to hand out freebies to "underprivileged" people who think they're entitled to handouts because they are $minority, nor does it mean that I think that everything is absolutely peachy and we have total equality already anyway just 'cause our law books say we should.
I also think that I have no right to say that you have to be the gender your dangly (or not so dangly) bits convey, but I refuse to be yelled at for "assuming a gender". I do know a few transgender people, and I know what bullshit they have to go through, but EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is going out of their way to make absolutely CERTAIN you KNOW what gender they identify as. They are essentially the living stereotype of their gender, just to make sure that people, at least those that do care, address them correctly. Funny enough, none of them ever got into a hissy fit over being "mis-gendered", the most you'd get is a "please, I'd prefer he/I'd prefer she". And guess what, it works.
But I digress.
What we see in politics, and people, is what I'd identify as overcompensation. You don't want people to think you could maybe take position A, so you go WAY overboard and take position B to grotesque lengths and, and this is more the problem, accept that people do that. And that's in my opinion the problem.
Re: Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Naw. Libertarians believe that companies that oppress users will fail in the marketplace. (Let me know when John Deere, Microsoft, and Apple oppress their way out of the marketplace). I kinda like libertarians. They are often nice people who mean well. And they are frequently quite good on civil liberty issues. But they are remarkably slow learners.
Re: Liability (Score:3, Insightful)
Somalia is libertarian. Limited government, those with wealth can afford private armies, and wealth dictates who wins nearly all the time. This is why there are no functional intentionally defined libertarian governments on earth.
Re: Liability (Score:3)
Somalia is libertarian
Is it easier to spew such bullshit, retarded strawman lines with a straight face when you're logged-in as AC?
Re: (Score:3)
The Libertarian Party in the United States certainly supports corporations. Quoting from their platform [lp.org]:
2.7 Marketplace Freedom
Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association.
And nice "No True Scotsman" on your part.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Enforcement of legal contracts is one of the few "legitimate" areas for the Government to be involved in, according to most Libertarian types I have spoken with. The proper role for the Government and courts is to act as the armed enforcement agents for the corporations.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Another who knows nothing about Libertarianism (Score:4, Insightful)
Libertarians believe very strongly in property rights and that one of government's most important functions is to preserve property rights:
Same problem: just as "liberal", "libertarian" has changed its meaning in American English.
Historically, the libertarians were non-statist (non-Marxist) communists [wikipedia.org].
Re: Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking from experience; they do this because a large portion of their profits are made in repairs. If you are a farmer and you only have a few weeks to get your crops planted and your equipment breaks down you will pay way more than what the repair is actually worth if you are losing money each day it's not in operation, in fact you may even be looking at bankruptcy and ruin all because the local dealerships wants $$$$ for a repair that should cost $$$ You will pay the extra money because the alternative is worse
Re: Liability (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about you, but if I had "rooted" my tractor, I think the first thing that would get disabled is any way to connect the thing to the Internet (which is, BTW, not all that easy to connect to wirelessly in many rural areas).
Unless GPS satellites will helpfully relay John Deere kill signals, it's a little hard to see how the kill switch is going to work.
Re: (Score:3)
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) stipulates that a lot of what goes into modern engine firmware for emissions regulations.
Looks like the EPA isn't going to have the money to enforce much of anything according to the proposed federal budget.
This is a good thing. Don't get me wrong, I like clean air, water, etc, and at one time in the past, the EPA was at least passably effective and focused on actually protecting the environment in a reasonable and pragmatic manner. The EPA has since grown into an out-of-control federal bureaucratic monster. The EPA has jumped the shark and does far more harm to society than good. Time to start
Re:Liability (Score:4, Insightful)
The owner of the tractor. Sorry, I have to be specific in this time and age: The person who paid good money to use a tractor that the manufacturer still thinks is theirs.
Just like the way it has always been.
The main difference being that if you use "original" firmware, rest assured that NOBODY will be liable. If anything, JD will certainly have a way to brush it off on the farmer anyway.
Re:Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Is John Deere legally liable if an UNMODIFIED tractor malfunctions and hurts someone? Nope, that's right there in the summary of the license agreement. Why do you think THAT will change because of modified firmware?
Re:Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Is John Deere legally liable if an UNMODIFIED tractor malfunctions and hurts someone? Nope, that's right there in the summary of the license agreement. Why do you think THAT will change because of modified firmware?
Like most here, you don't understand how US law really works. My best friend is a lawyer, we've known each other since college, and he's taught me a lot over the years. One of the things he's taught me is that when you sign an agreement that says you sign away your rights, that doesn't necessarily mean you actually have signed away your rights. There are various ways around this kind of thing, including arguing something that amounts to saying that John Deere coerced you into signing that and you had no choice but to agree. Also, you seem to not realize that once you get to court, anything is possible. Depending on how good the lawyers are, the judge's personal involvement in the case (whether he/she steers the jury with comments or leaves them alone to do whatever they will), and the jury itself, any kind of verdict is possible.
Re:Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Even better, remove the market for hacked firmware in the first place by backing right-to-repair laws, sponsored by your local member of legislature.
Or is that too 'big-government' for someone?
Re:Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Liability is with the owner, because he was forced to sign a contract that makes him liable for anything.
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Taking liability and responsibility for something you cannot even assess the risk of, let alone mitigate it?
Among people working in security such jobs are nicknamed "ejector seats". With someone else having the launch trigger.
You better pay me well if you plan to put me on one.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't sign it. If enough farmers refused, JD would be unable to sell their shit. Unless you're suggesting they were forced to sign at gun-point.
Re:Liability (Score:4, Insightful)
Liability is with the owner, because that's common fucking sense.
The owner is, and remains, John Deere. The farmer is renting it, and agreeing to pay its bills.
Re:Liability (Score:5, Interesting)
I've read it, and it is mimicking that through idiotic and restrictive End User License Agreements. For the software.
There is no explicit clause that forbids tinkering with the hardware, but that seems to be enforced by the software. As in, change a part that has a microcontroller and it won't work without a John Deere technician coming and authorizing it.
Besides, if I read paragraph 13 correctly, the owner of the tractor has to indemnify John Deere and its dealers against all and any lawsuits, even if John Deere or the dealer is at fault for the cause of the lawsuit. That goes beyond everything I've seen in software EULAs so far. Those usually demand only indemnification against lawsuits that arise out of actions by the owner.
Re:Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, if I read paragraph 13 correctly, the owner of the tractor has to indemnify John Deere and its dealers against all and any lawsuits, even if John Deere or the dealer is at fault for the cause of the lawsuit. That goes beyond everything I've seen in software EULAs so far. Those usually demand only indemnification against lawsuits that arise out of actions by the owner.
The thing about EULA's is that you can put anything you like in there. You can demand the forfeiture of their first born if you like. What matters is what a court of law will enforce, EULA's are CYA memos, not legally enforceable contracts.
What is enforceable depends on how bad the courts are in your area.
Re:Liability (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Liability (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure if it is the case in the US, but where I live, I can not sign away my rights to file a lawsuit if I wanted to and my life depended on it.
"Be he SAID he wouldn't sue." would be laughed at so hard in court and would make you guilty almost by default.
Most countries including the US has laws against fake legalise that is intended to scare other people away from suing. This is actually illegal almost everywhere, it is just not enforced, and the lack of enforcement is building precedence.
Re:Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually a sane legal system (still not the USA) does not permit you to sign your legal rights. You can sign a contract claiming that you are waving your legal rights but those clauses are null and void as far as the courts are concerned.
Re:Liability (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, sane legal systems have a provision against underhanded practices like that.
Our legal system actually knows a few "non-negotiable rights" you have in a contract, no matter whether the contract tries to void them, you have them. You can for example not waive the right to enforce a contract against your contractual partner (i.e. making it a one-sided contract where only one side can hold the other side to fulfillment).
Funny enough, the provision could best be translated as "protection against immoral clauses" ("contra bonos mores" for the legal geeks here).
And our judges tend to enforce such things quite broadly if they feel you try to bullshit your business partner. Or, worse, the judge.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
how long before JD or whoever buy Valtra and put a stop to it?
Re:thiefs (Score:4, Insightful)
The liberals (at least here in the USA) aren't the ones worshiping the "invisible hand", those are the libertarians.