from Hacker News

Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

by pak on 4/9/17, 11:28 PM with 343 comments

• by Sytten on 4/10/17, 3:43 AM

  My dad is a farmer and I can assure you that this is a real problem. Every piece of equipment now as its own proprietary, closed-source and, most of the time, incompatible software. Plus, many of them don't get any update after the product launch. When you are in rush to plant or harvest you just can`t afford to wait for an authorized dealer. And if they fail, good luck trying to find a replacement that is not 100x overpriced because it has been discontinued one year after you bought it. I tried repairing a GPS system once and it required a special serial cable + software which costed more than 100$ just to update the driver...

• by TaylorAlexander on 4/10/17, 1:55 AM

  I think we'd all be better off if basically everything was open source, by way of eliminating intellectual property protections provided by governments.

  As an alternate solution, those of us with engineering skills can work to create an open source economy with open source factories, computers, and products.

  This would never be a problem nor would it be likely to happen if genuinely competitive options existed for farmers that were not locked down.

  Another way we in this community can help is by helping smaller businesses learn the value of open source and get them using and creating it.

  I believe with a sufficiently open source base in our economy, we can make great headway into eliminating material poverty.

  I write a little about this on my personal site, here:

  http://tlalexander.com/machine/

• by jaclaz on 4/10/17, 10:32 AM

  I have the feeling that somehow the actual need has been put aside for phylosophical (or Open Source, etc.) reasonings (nice but not the original issue).

  More or less what the good farmers are asking for (which is not about the code, the kernel or whatever, they are not "hackers" as much as the authorized JD technicians are not computer experts or programmers or software engineers) is just access to the "database" of parts serial number of the machine.

  Loosely the way it works (simplified) is a database where the (say) pressure sensor #42 has been registered (authorized) in the operating system as having serial number #0123456789. When the sensor breaks, after it has been replaced with a new (original or verified third party) sensor, you need to update the database telling it that sensor with serial #0123456789 has bee replaced with sensor serial number #2223334445 and - of course it depends on the specific part - possibly run a "self-test" program to verify that the sensor works properly and maybe tune/regulate it.

  The farmers do not want the source code, they don't want to modify it, they don't want to "hack" anything, they simply want to be able to replace a part and have the thingy work.

  Going back to software, let's talk of - say - Windows 7 (yeah I know that all the rage is about Windows 10 nowadays) and its activation, imagine that instead of having one month time to activate a new install either through the internet, the automated phone call in case it doesn't work and a support phone call for particular cases where the previous two options do not work, activation was:

  1) Immediately mandatory (i.e. the OS wouldn't work until activated)

  2) ONLY available through a local visit of a MS agent (9 to 5 , Monday to Friday) at a cost of (say) US$ 100.00/hour + US$ 1.00/mile

• by nottorp on 4/10/17, 7:26 AM

  I don't get why all this chat is about software, licensing and software safety.

  The way I read it, a farmer can't change even, say, a brake pad (or whatever tractors use) without authorization from John Deere. I very strongly doubt that they want to mess with the software, they just want to perform minor maintenance themselves.

• by throwaway_jddev on 4/10/17, 3:52 AM

  Hey all, I worked on software for John Deere. This is a throwaway account for obvious reasons. Opinions expressed here are MY OWN. I no longer work for John Deere or am associated with them in any way.

  I was part of one of the many teams that work on this software. Specifically I was part of John Deere's ISG division also known as the Intelligent Solutions Group. The ISG division (was at the time) responsible for tying together various software built by OEM's, for building the central UI within the cabin, and for building various debugging and build tools. The team I was on, consisted of about 8 very senior engineers, and I think there were around 20 total engineers working for ISG at the time (though I saw, and knew only a handful of them). Now, when I say OEM integration, I mean suppliers and other John Deere divisions with their own teams mirroring ours. All told, I would estimate that John Deere has somewhere between 150-300 engineers working full-time on their codebase for their tractors.

  Let me disabuse you of any myths. I have worked in software for 20 years. I have worked in large enterprises, and scrappy startups. This software is by FAR the largest, most complex codebase I have ever interacted with. Submission of any new code was seriously considered and reviewed before it entered production (sometimes to a pedantic degree), after which JD put all new code through 10s of thousands of hours of testing on production equipment. Production and release cycles take on the order of months to ensure that we don't kill people.

  These are not riding lawnmowers. They are 30-ton combines, and 20 ton tractors tilling fields, with massive horsepower behind them. They have a real potential to end peoples lives in the event of failure, and these tractors do (in testing) fail in spectacular ways. If a team of hundred of engineers struggle with their codebase internally, Joe Farmer isn't going to have a fucking clue how to repair their software correctly.

  Now should you, in theory, have the right to modify equipment you own? Sure. Absolutely. Hell, John Deere tractors run on open source software. But trust me on this, locking this down is a very good idea.

  If you have the drive to make open source tractor software AND can make absolutely certain no-one ever dies from code you write, then go do it. Just keep in mind that the engineers that work on this shit really care about keeping people safe.

• by cmurf on 4/10/17, 1:45 AM

  Among the most successful cars were those with straightforward replacement parts, a defacto standard, and reasonably well documented and available maintenance manuals.

  Tesla wants control over this, by literally renting the maintenance manual, and remotely disabling the car if repairs or parts aren't authorized. I don't expect the model 3 market will appreciate this business model. It will be a much more price sensitive market compared to the early models which has been relatively inelastic for repairs and resale.

  Consider the x86 computer market, if every component had signed firmware, and the main system verified this signature in case of component replacement, and would fail to function at all if signature verification failed. What a pain...

  Consider voting machines, proprietary hardware, expensive to design, maintain, audit, and go obsolete in as few as 1/2 dozen uses. Compare that to pencil and paper.

  The older I get the more Darth Vader I become: "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed." (Let's say the Force is common sense in this metaphor.)

• by tim333 on 4/10/17, 1:24 AM

  Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13925994 (177 comments)

• by kccqzy on 4/10/17, 4:34 AM

  This really reminds me of how Richard Stallman started GNU. It was because he can't modify the software on a printer he uses.

• by intrasight on 4/10/17, 4:50 AM

  While this is a fascinating question in the context of tractors, it gets even more interesting in the context of cars, houses, personal electronics, light bulbs. The First Sale Doctrine is being eroded by DRM.

• by mabbo on 4/10/17, 3:06 AM

  It's not just the farmer paying for this: it's everyone who eats food.

  The time wasted is lost productivity. The extra fees just for a software unlock is lost money. The farmer has to either charge more, or go out of business sooner. Either way, the cost of food rises.

• by userbinator on 4/10/17, 3:47 AM

  Every time I read or hear about new developments in creating safer/more secure software, I am reminded of scenarios like this. Companies could use formally verified crypto and such to provably and completely lock out users by destroying all means of circumvention. In that sense, I think these secure technologies are like nuclear weapons --- extremely powerful, too powerful. Society in general seems to rely on some insecurity to maintain its freedom; so I believe anyone who advocates for more secure systems should also carefully consider all the negative effects which will appear if their vision comes true, and whether they are, however indirectly, locking themselves out.

• by swanson on 4/10/17, 3:39 AM

  It seems so unbelievable to me that there are enough people that are a) John Deere equipment owners/renters and b) capable of debugging and patching issues in a C++ codebase for these stories to keep appearing.

  Debates on the virtues of open source aside, is this actually the solution? Or is it a symptom of, say, poor quality software releases? or service visits that are too costly? or overloaded dealers who can't handle harvest-time support loads? I just don't believe that allowing people to tinker with the software is going to be the magic answer that these folks seem to think it is.

• by shawn-butler on 4/10/17, 1:14 AM

  The motherboard/vice article NPR is blatantly ripping off here is much better in my opinion.

  https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/why-american-farm...

• by itchyjunk on 4/10/17, 1:19 AM

  "farmers could damage the machines, like bypassing pollution emissions controls to get more horsepower."

  Isn't this the problem with warranties? People could try to mod it, end up damaging it and try to get it replaced with warranties.

  I also don't fully understand this software. Is it just completely vendor locked? That sounds really unreasonable. It should allow for at least basic debugging and trouble shooting.

  Is this software locking only in large $100k + harvester type equipment? Does the vendor have other reasonable explanation of doing this?

  I wonder if the software designer for this equipments would have reasonable arguments for such locks or if this is just profit driven decision.

• by peter_retief on 4/10/17, 8:56 AM

  This seems to be a regular way to lock in customers, I think of ink jet cartridges and even 3d printer refills use similar tricks. I wonder if there is a case to be made in making this illegal or optional

• by douche on 4/10/17, 1:23 AM

  There's going to be a huge market in used pre-DRM heavy machinery. The purely mechanical/hydraulic versions of this stuff is virtually indestructible, with a little maintenance.

• by andrewchambers on 4/10/17, 1:05 AM

  I don't like the idea that we have to pass laws to force companies to make a better product. Why can't a company take the initiative and grab all the customers who value this?

• by arca_vorago on 4/10/17, 1:52 AM

  I wonder, is the a GPL tractor software project out there yet?

• by ivanhoe on 4/10/17, 10:42 AM

  Couldn't they organize and sue the manufacturer for their losses due to the tractor malfunctions in critical periods and being prevented to service them promptly? I understand it's a bit naive, but you don't solve this by hacking around the problem, but by attacking the problem through the institutions of the system.

• by intrasight on 4/10/17, 5:01 AM

  The jet engines in a modern airplane have some analogies here. You can think of an engine as a PaaS (Propulsion-as-a-Service). A tractor is HaaS (Harvesting-as-a-Service). Our technologies have reach this level of complexity - the must be offered as a service. Cars will soon be Mobility-as-a-Service. Putting on my economist hat, I'd say that it is the ultimate manifestation of "comparative advantage". If JD abuses their monopoly position, then fix that through the courts and legislation, or by buying a competitors product. Don't try to hack the terms of service. But JD and other "product" vendors need to make it clear that they are in fact selling a service.

• by squarefoot on 4/10/17, 9:05 AM

  SmartTV and other appliances are closed too, so that users must purchase a new one when for example codecs become obsolete. Sadly, the closed source model is not just being used where there are safety concerns involved.

• by kvncombo on 4/10/17, 2:56 PM

  The big boys have obviously cornered the market. Is there any farming equipment company that provides more open access for maintenance and repairs? If not, why not? It seems there is an opportunity there.

• by andai on 4/10/17, 10:06 AM

  Can someone please explain what software has to do with repairing a tractor?

  Edit: it looks like the physical components themselves are DRMed? Wtf?

• by tbyehl on 4/10/17, 2:31 AM

  I'm starting to wonder if these articles are driven by a PR firm paid by John Deere's competition. They're always about John Deere and only John Deere. Aside from the Motherboard / Vice article, they never provide any specifics about the maintenance or repair operations that farms are prevented from doing on their own.

  With the Vice article, 2 of the 3 things they mention are modifying the tractors to operate in ways the manufacturer did not intend which could result in damage.

• by watertom on 4/10/17, 3:13 AM

  What's ironic is most of these farmers are republicans and voted in the people who enable this crap.

• by known on 4/10/17, 2:56 AM

  And https://www.iphoneasyunlock.com/

• by arkis22 on 4/10/17, 4:22 AM

  Everybody likes to feel taken advantage of.

  If I was a business owner or engineer that built systems this complex and you asked me to not lock it down, I'd call you freaking crazy.

  These are very expensive and complex machines, and you want my competition or some farmer who has no idea what he's doing to access and modify it?

  No thank you.

  Google keeps proprietary code. And that's for auto complete...

• by soheil on 4/10/17, 4:35 AM

  Imagine not so long in the future if self-driving cars were forced to reveal their code because of the right-to-repair bill, 1. who without a vast depth of knowledge in C++, etc. would be able to go anywhere near it? 2. even if they did is it in their best interest or anyone else's if they tinker with the code and made the car take undesirable actions?

  Maybe buying a tractor should be replaced with leasing tractors, if they never want you to fully own everything in it. I think very soon there will be more and more of a need for a new way to determine what products are allowed to be sold partially with a secret OEM key.

• by notliketherest on 4/10/17, 1:27 AM

  When we buy a piece of software, we own and "physically" posses a binary which we feel we can rightly take apart, modify, and mess with it because we view it as analogous to owning a toaster or stereo in the physical world. It's in our home, we can touch it, and we in essence control it.

  Now the same is never said for software as a service. We buy subscriptions to services all the time but don't demand an ability to modify or control the software. It's defined in our agreement. Now it seems to me that the companies that sell these tractors have decided to pursue a model by which their software is more or less SaSS (providing encrypted updates over the air). Why is it that these farmers believe they have a right to modify that software?