It isn't just your iPhone...
QuoteWhy American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware
Jason Koebler
Mar 21 2017, 4:17pm
A dive into the thriving black market of John Deere tractor hacking.
To avoid the draconian locks that John Deere puts on the tractors they buy, farmers throughout America's heartland have started hacking their equipment with firmware that's cracked in Eastern Europe and traded on invite-only, paid online forums.
Tractor hacking is growing increasingly popular because John Deere and other manufacturers have made it impossible to perform "unauthorized" repair on farm equipment, which farmers see as an attack on their sovereignty and quite possibly an existential threat to their livelihood if their tractor breaks at an inopportune time.
"When crunch time comes and we break down, chances are we don't have time to wait for a dealership employee to show up and fix it," Danny Kluthe, a hog farmer in Nebraska, told his state legislature earlier this month. "Most all the new equipment [requires] a download [to fix]."
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware
Quote"Right to Repair" Is About a Whole Lot More Than iPhones
Apple is preparing to do battle with "Right to Repair" legislation in Nebraska, but there's more than just phones at stake.
The Right to Repair movement is getting a major opponent in the form of Apple, according to reports from Vice's Motherboard. And while the battle over repairing phones may take the forefront, there's much more at stake.
"Right to Repair" is legislation would require Apple and other electronics manufacturers to sell repair parts to consumers and independent repair shops. On top of that, the laws would require manufacturers to make diagnostic and service manuals available to the public.
Backed by the lobbying group Repair.org, Right to Repair legislation is currently working its way through eight state-level legislatures across the country: Nebraska, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, Kansas, Wyoming, Illinois and Tennessee. Apple appears to be focusing its efforts on the Nebraska efforts at first, perhaps because Nebraska's unique unicameral legislature (the state has no House or Senate, just one body known as "the Legislature") makes it easier to consolidate lobbying efforts.
According to Motherboard's source, an Apple representative will testify against the bill, LB 67, at a hearing in Lincoln on March 9, alongside AT&T. Collectively, the two companies will argue against the legislation as a matter of safety, saying that consumers who repair their own phones could cause lithium batteries to catch fire. It's a danger that's been in the news regularly, most recently when a fire broke out in a Samsung factory in China.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a25246/right-to-repair-legislation-under-fire-in-nebraska/
That's very interesting, BT. Thanks for posting that. I wasn't aware of the "right to repair" movement, though I had heard people moaning about iPhones - particularly when lots of them were bricked after a recent software update. The tractor thing is almost funny, though I totally get where the farmers are coming from. I'd never have realised that was an issue.
Would be interested in hearing your take on this. I think it seems reasonable to require manufacturers to allow people to repair their own property. Of course, I assume there would be warranty implications.
I think more is coming soon... How about being forced to take you car to the dealership... no more DIY or Pep Boys or Bubba's auto repair. Any computer or electronic devices...
Rather interesting. The hacker community meets the heartland.
I support the right to repair. I build my own computers. I cannot imagine being forced to buy and repair through Dell or HP only.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 22, 2017, 03:34:40 PM
I think more is coming soon... How about being forced to take you car to the dealership... no more DIY or Pep Boys or Bubba's auto repair. Any computer or electronic devices...
It's kind of like the next step in planned obsolescence or something. I guess companies have to figure out ways to make more money. Or new income streams in order to maximise earnings potential or something like that.
What's particularly galling is that you have to pay way over the odds for Apple products as it is. Then you'll need to pay them their inflated prices for repairs. I reckon John Deere tractors aren't too cheap, either.
Although I generally support the right to repair, forcing manufacturers to produce replacement parts and sell them seems like an overreach.
https://repair.org/
Check this out... https://www.ifixit.com/
Never knew this existed but looks like good DIY stuff...
Quote from: remc86007 on March 22, 2017, 03:49:12 PM
Although I generally support the right to repair, forcing manufacturers to produce replacement parts and sell them seems like an overreach.
I would tend to agree. The other issue is warranties. For example, let's say I open up my iPhone to repair Part A. I fix Part A, but in doing so I damage Part B. Am I under warranty for Part B?
I would say warranties aside, I'm all for consumers truly "owning" an item they bought.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 22, 2017, 03:58:40 PM
Check this out... https://www.ifixit.com/
Never knew this existed but looks like good DIY stuff...
One of my favorite sites.
I love watching their tear downs of new electronics products.
Quote from: Steve on March 22, 2017, 04:01:02 PM
Quote from: remc86007 on March 22, 2017, 03:49:12 PM
Although I generally support the right to repair, forcing manufacturers to produce replacement parts and sell them seems like an overreach.
I would tend to agree. The other issue is warranties. For example, let's say I open up my iPhone to repair Part A. I fix Part A, but in doing so I damage Part B. Am I under warranty for Part B?
I would say warranties aside, I'm all for consumers truly "owning" an item they bought.
My opinion only but in your scenario, you'd be out of luck. If you have something under warranty and decide to crack into it yourself, you've made that choice. No difference (for me) between vehicles or technology.
That said, I 100% support this right-to-repair movement. I saw a story (I believe on 60 Minutes) a couple of years ago about these tractor owners and the crap they were going through with the software that ran their machines. There is no need for that info to be proprietary and confidential, other than to force you to spend more money with that company.
^Just fyi, vehicles are different under the Magnuson-Moss warranty act. For instance, if you repair or upgrade the intake on your car, the manufacturer can't refuse to fix an issue with the fuel pump as they are unrelated.
That act seems to apply to all warranties and not at all specific to cars...
^You are correct, it does apply to things other than cars, my previous post incorrectly implies that the act just applies to cars. I was trying to say that cars, unlike tractors (to my knowledge), have had specific rulemaking from the FTC as a result of Magnuson-Moss.
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-routine-maintenance
Quote from: remc86007 on March 22, 2017, 06:12:22 PM
^Just fyi, vehicles are different under the Magnuson-Moss warranty act. For instance, if you repair or upgrade the intake on your car, the manufacturer can't refuse to fix an issue with the fuel pump as they are unrelated.
I understand that. In his scenario above, however, he was saying he damaged Part B because of his work on part A. In that case I think he'd be out of luck.
Per PCMag.com:
http://www.pcmag.com/commentary/351877/there-is-no-right-to-repair (http://www.pcmag.com/commentary/351877/there-is-no-right-to-repair)
There Is No Right to Repair
BY JOHN C. DVORAK
Right to repair is back in the news because Apple is opposing a Nebraska bill that would require electronics companies like Apple to produce repair manuals and sell replacement parts.
Apple only got involved because the bill—one of eight nationwide, according to Motherboard—threatens its software licenses. We saw a similar battle between farmers and John Deere, which asserted that ownership of John Deere equipment "does not include the right to copy, modify or distribute software that is embedded in that equipment."
This all stems back to the 1980s when the CEO of MicroPro International, Seymour Rubenstein, developed the licensing agreement for WordStar, the premier word processor of the era. It was based on the licensing agreements used by software vendors for mainframe and minicomputers, which have evolved into the fully legal shrink-wrap licensing agreements we know today.
Rubenstein saw this as the future of all commerce, with even books being licensed and not sold. In his perfect world, you'd never buy (or own) anything. Everything would be a rental agreement and you could never resell anything.
I can assure you that every car manufacturer, as well as the entire spate of Internet of Things makers, is considering the idea. Why would Samsung, for example, want to license its IoT refrigerator rather than sell it to you? Many reasons: To prevent you from using anything other than an official Samsung repair service. To prevent you from reselling the device. To prevent you from bad-mouthing the product.
Yes, a lot of licensing agreements do not allow criticism of the product. License holders have yet to go the mat over customer complaints, but it could—and will—happen someday.
There is a lot you can put in these agreements. The courts have upheld them and that's the real problem.
Do you want the right to fix and repair? How about fixing and repairing bad code? How do you accomplish that? When you boil it all down, much of the fixing needs to be done at the software level. That means releasing the source code. The big software companies, as well as Apple and others, purposely sketched the Digital Millennium Copyright Act with that in mind. They were afraid the courts would make companies show their code; the DMCA would be the only law that prevents people from stealing the code after that happens. Yet that's the same DMCA used to prevent farmers from fixing their tractors.
Computer enthusiasts must realize that this is not about Apple. It's about the limitations created by licensing. Apple knows the ropes, understands the downside to the company, and it's fighting to stop these laws in Nebraska and elsewhere. Naturally.
Let's see if the long-established licensing ploy finally gets tossed for good. Because the future of everything is at stake.
Quote from: TimmyB on March 22, 2017, 09:36:08 PM
Quote from: remc86007 on March 22, 2017, 06:12:22 PM
^Just fyi, vehicles are different under the Magnuson-Moss warranty act. For instance, if you repair or upgrade the intake on your car, the manufacturer can't refuse to fix an issue with the fuel pump as they are unrelated.
I understand that. In his scenario above, however, he was saying he damaged Part B because of his work on part A. In that case I think he'd be out of luck.
I stated my point poorly. My point was not if you clearly broke Part B - that I would expect would be my responsibility. My point was let's say a week after you fixed Part A, Part B stopped working. The manufacturer claimed that Part B was damaged as a result of something done with Part A where you feel it had nothing to do with Part A (like the intake-fuel pump example above).
My whole point was it does go down a grey area, especially with electronics (and I think more of these issues will come in the auto industry as cars today have exponentially more electronics/computers than in years past).
To be clear, I'm generally in favor of Right to Repair in concept. If I own the device, I own the device. I'm not sure manufacturers should be required to sell replacement parts or publish repair manuals though. In some industries, it's just good business to do so but I'm not convinced that applies in all industries.
If manufacturers are not required to sell replacement parts or publish manuals... then they need to allow a third party to do so...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 23, 2017, 10:07:13 AM
If manufacturers are not required to sell replacement parts or publish manuals... then they need to allow a third party to do so...
I want to agree with this because it benefits the consumer. But think about electronics. Let's say you have a resistor that goes bad. I buy a new resistor from a third party, and it malfunctions and destroys something else. Is that the problem of the original manufacturer?
I also think Parts and manuals are very different. Parts are specific devices that serve a purpose (how many people make USB cables)? Manuals on the other hand are intellectual property.
Quote from: Steve on March 23, 2017, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 23, 2017, 10:07:13 AM
If manufacturers are not required to sell replacement parts or publish manuals... then they need to allow a third party to do so...
I want to agree with this because it benefits the consumer. But think about electronics. Let's say you have a resistor that goes bad. I buy a new resistor from a third party, and it malfunctions and destroys something else. Is that the problem of the original manufacturer?
I also think Parts and manuals are very different. Parts are specific devices that serve a purpose (how many people make USB cables)? Manuals on the other hand are intellectual property.
I would like to separate devices still under warranty from things that no longer are. If your phone or tractor is under a manufacturers warranty then you probably need to use that manufacturer to repair. To me this seems clear. It is the
after warranty time frame where the right to repair needs to be extended or allowed. Post warranty you should be able to use the repair mode of your choice.
Manuals are indeed intellectual property but so what? As long as I am not building a phone or tractor on the basis of the information in the manual it should be ok. Copyright protection should cover it right? Repair manuals such as Chiltons ( http://www.chiltondiy.com/ )have been around for decades... What is the difference?
Quote from: Steve on March 23, 2017, 10:00:44 AM
Quote from: TimmyB on March 22, 2017, 09:36:08 PM
Quote from: remc86007 on March 22, 2017, 06:12:22 PM
^Just fyi, vehicles are different under the Magnuson-Moss warranty act. For instance, if you repair or upgrade the intake on your car, the manufacturer can't refuse to fix an issue with the fuel pump as they are unrelated.
I understand that. In his scenario above, however, he was saying he damaged Part B because of his work on part A. In that case I think he'd be out of luck.
I stated my point poorly. My point was not if you clearly broke Part B - that I would expect would be my responsibility. My point was let's say a week after you fixed Part A, Part B stopped working. The manufacturer claimed that Part B was damaged as a result of something done with Part A where you feel it had nothing to do with Part A (like the intake-fuel pump example above).
My whole point was it does go down a grey area, especially with electronics (and I think more of these issues will come in the auto industry as cars today have exponentially more electronics/computers than in years past).
To be clear, I'm generally in favor of Right to Repair in concept. If I own the device, I own the device. I'm not sure manufacturers should be required to sell replacement parts or publish repair manuals though. In some industries, it's just good business to do so but I'm not convinced that applies in all industries.
I appreciate your point, but if you think about it, we kind of already have situations like this. We take our under-warranty vehicle to the "fast oil change" place, but then something goes wrong in the engine. Now, the dealership says that they're not sure if warranty will cover it because you didn't have the maintenance done with them. I've read/heard too many of those through the years.
You are 100% correct that we will see more and more of this as cars become even more tech-dependent. My Subaru with the Eyesight system is simply amazing and I can understand why the manufacturer would not want anyone tinkering with THAT software, but these legal battles are way above anything I can do about! ;)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 23, 2017, 10:54:37 AM
Manuals are indeed intellectual property but so what? As long as I am not building a phone or tractor on the basis of the information in the manual it should be ok. Copyright protection should cover it right? Repair manuals such as Chiltons ( http://www.chiltondiy.com/ )have been around for decades... What is the difference?
A couple of comments on this. First, yes, the information contained in manuals is largely intellectual property, however, the information itself isn't copyrighted (though the manual itself may be). The information about the product is generally covered by patents and, perhaps more importantly, trade secrets. Trade secrets are where the real problem for manufacturers is as they are no longer "protected" if they are disclosed by the holder. Chiltons and Haynes manuals are different because they are created in a process similar to the software design term "cleanroom development." They completely take apart a car and put it back together and document their process of doing so. Much of the technical information in the manuals is provided to Chiltons and others by the manufacturers because they wish to maintain and create customer loyalty.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 21, 1974, 04:41:27 PMPost warranty you should be able to use the repair mode of your choice.
100% Agree
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 21, 1974, 04:41:27 PM
Manuals are indeed intellectual property but so what? As long as I am not building a phone or tractor on the basis of the information in the manual it should be ok. Copyright protection should cover it right? Repair manuals such as Chiltons ( http://www.chiltondiy.com/ )have been around for decades... What is the difference?
As someone in IT who got into this field as a software developer, this is where I have a hard time. What's fundamentally the difference then if I have to toss my source code out there? Not that I'm some God of a programmer and 99% of my work is owned by either my current or former employer (pretty common that employers in the creator space ask this, though not all do) so really it would be my employer's decision.
The point is that I do believe that companies and people that create things shouldn't always be required to divulge their intellectual property.
Quote from: remc86007 on March 23, 2017, 11:33:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 23, 2017, 10:54:37 AM
Manuals are indeed intellectual property but so what? As long as I am not building a phone or tractor on the basis of the information in the manual it should be ok. Copyright protection should cover it right? Repair manuals such as Chiltons ( http://www.chiltondiy.com/ )have been around for decades... What is the difference?
A couple of comments on this. First, yes, the information contained in manuals is largely intellectual property, however, the information itself isn't copyrighted (though the manual itself may be). The information about the product is generally covered by patents and, perhaps more importantly, trade secrets. Trade secrets are where the real problem for manufacturers is as they are no longer "protected" if they are disclosed by the holder. Chiltons and Haynes manuals are different because they are created in a process similar to the software design term "cleanroom development." They completely take apart a car and put it back together and document their process of doing so. Much of the technical information in the manuals is provided to Chiltons and others by the manufacturers because they wish to maintain and create customer loyalty.
Loyalty can certainly be gained by providing that information yes - I completely agree. In that case, it's good business to provide this information because put aside any laws for a second...if a manufacturer decided to not provide this information and all service had to be done at the dealer, the consumers would likely go elsewhere for cars. In other words the market is really deciding, not the law.
Quote from: Steve on March 23, 2017, 11:45:18 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 21, 1974, 04:41:27 PMPost warranty you should be able to use the repair mode of your choice.
100% Agree
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 21, 1974, 04:41:27 PM
Manuals are indeed intellectual property but so what? As long as I am not building a phone or tractor on the basis of the information in the manual it should be ok. Copyright protection should cover it right? Repair manuals such as Chiltons ( http://www.chiltondiy.com/ )have been around for decades... What is the difference?
As someone in IT who got into this field as a software developer, this is where I have a hard time. What's fundamentally the difference then if I have to toss my source code out there? Not that I'm some God of a programmer and 99% of my work is owned by either my current or former employer (pretty common that employers in the creator space ask this, though not all do) so really it would be my employer's decision.
The point is that I do believe that companies and people that create things shouldn't always be required to divulge their intellectual property.
As an IT pro myself (more on the admin/maint side) I certainly understand your point. I think there are ways to protect that property and still give people the right to repair. We all know about the myriad of IT type certifications for creating, maintaining, using, hardening etc hardware and software of various manufactures... Cisco, Microsoft, IBM etc certify technicians, hardware manufacturers, software designers to use their products properly. Seems to me John Deere, Apple and others could easily do the same...
The market would crucify a company that doesn't let you do this. If I couldn't go to ubreakifix or wherever and get my screen replaced or whatever broke, I wouldn't have an iPhone. If I couldn't call detroit diesel and get a service manual showing me how to service the engines in my boat, then I wouldn't have bought that boat. I wouldn't buy a car that I can't readily have serviced in the market. In theory, yes, all this stuff is legally the IP of whoever designed and copyrighted it, and yes in theory they don't legally have to share it with you. But in practice if a manufacturer ever actually did that, then think about it, their market share would go to effectively zero. Few would buy something that permanently ties you at the hip to only one service provider.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 30, 2017, 10:25:58 AM
The market would crucify a company that doesn't let you do this. If I couldn't go to ubreakifix or wherever and get my screen replaced or whatever broke, I wouldn't have an iPhone. If I couldn't call detroit diesel and get a service manual showing me how to service the engines in my boat, then I wouldn't have bought that boat. I wouldn't buy a car that I can't readily have serviced in the market. In theory, yes, all this stuff is legally the IP of whoever designed and copyrighted it, and yes in theory they don't legally have to share it with you. But in practice if a manufacturer ever actually did that, then think about it, their market share would go to effectively zero. Few would buy something that permanently ties you at the hip to only one service provider.
Oh?
Tesla? the Apple car?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 30, 2017, 10:25:58 AM
Few would buy something that permanently ties you at the hip to only one service provider.
I was going to say the same as spuwho. Apple has done quite well with this business model (iTunes).
Quote from: finehoe on March 30, 2017, 11:51:04 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 30, 2017, 10:25:58 AM
Few would buy something that permanently ties you at the hip to only one service provider.
I was going to say the same as spuwho. Apple has done quite well with this business model (iTunes).
But iTunes is free. And Apple hardware can be repaired by third parties. Well, could be. Not sure what's going on with that (following the iPhone screen issue).
I highlighted Chris' last sentence for a reason...when you use iTunes, you're essentially permanently tied at the hip to only one service provider.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 30, 2017, 10:25:58 AM
The market would crucify a company that doesn't let you do this. If I couldn't go to ubreakifix or wherever and get my screen replaced or whatever broke, I wouldn't have an iPhone. If I couldn't call detroit diesel and get a service manual showing me how to service the engines in my boat, then I wouldn't have bought that boat. I wouldn't buy a car that I can't readily have serviced in the market. In theory, yes, all this stuff is legally the IP of whoever designed and copyrighted it, and yes in theory they don't legally have to share it with you. But in practice if a manufacturer ever actually did that, then think about it, their market share would go to effectively zero. Few would buy something that permanently ties you at the hip to only one service provider.
John Deere Tractors and farm equipment... Original post...
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware
Quote from: finehoe on March 30, 2017, 12:07:28 PM
I highlighted Chris' last sentence for a reason...when you use iTunes, you're essentially permanently tied at the hip to only one service provider.
Yeah - but at least you can get the phone services by more than one company. Chris's last sentence - as I understood it - was referring to buying a car that he "can't readily have serviced in the market".
Quote from: Adam White on March 30, 2017, 12:16:38 PM
Yeah - but at least you can get the phone services by more than one company.
You still have to buy the Apple product. "Service provider" in this context means what is needed to listen to your music, not who you get you phone service from.
Quote from: Adam White on March 30, 2017, 12:16:38 PM
Chris's last sentence - as I understood it - was referring to buying a car that he "can't readily have serviced in the market".
He also talked about iPhones and boat engines, so I don't think he only meant cars.
Quote from: finehoe on March 30, 2017, 12:21:46 PM
Quote from: Adam White on March 30, 2017, 12:16:38 PM
Yeah - but at least you can get the phone services by more than one company.
You still have to buy the Apple product.
Quote from: Adam White on March 30, 2017, 12:16:38 PM
Chris's last sentence - as I understood it - was referring to buying a car that he "can't readily have serviced in the market".
He also talked about iPhones and boat engines, so I don't think he only meant cars.
I don't know what you mean by, "you still have to buy the Apple product". I own a Mac (and have owned many) and am not required to use iTunes as my media player. I also currently use a Samsung phone - and have all my music on it, a portion of which was purchased on the iTunes store. And all my music is on my Mac, which I used to transfer the files to my Samsung phone.
Yes, iTunes is the only software that works with iPhones (as far as syncing files and buying apps goes). But that's a software thing.
Chris did talk about boat engines and iPhones - he talked about servicing them. So the iTunes analogy isn't really apt (IMO).
Quote from: Adam White on March 30, 2017, 12:28:01 PM
So the iTunes analogy isn't really apt (IMO).
Okay, whatever you say.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/there-are-now-11-states-considering-bills-to-protect-your-right-to-repair-electronics
Quote
There Are Now 11 States Considering Bills to Protect Your 'Right to Repair' Electronics
Jason Koebler
Apr 10 2017, 10:56am
Lawmakers in three more states have just filed right to repair bills.
The right to repair movement is spreading. In recent weeks legislators in Iowa, Missouri, and North Carolina have introduced bills that would make it easier for you to fix your electronics, joining eight other states that introduced right-to-repair legislation earlier this year.
The bills would require manufacturers to sell replacement parts to consumers and independent repair companies and would also require them to open source diagnostic manuals. It would also give independent repair professionals the ability to bypass software locks that prevent repairs, allowing them to return a gadget back to its factory settings.
Right to repair advocates are looking at this movement as a perhaps decade-long process that will require a grassroots movement of consumers to push back against the long-entrenched repair monopolies of companies like Apple, John Deere, and video game console manufacturers.
It's heartening, then, that the bills in Iowa, Missouri, and North Carolina were introduced without the help of Repair.org, the trade organization of independent repair professionals that is pushing for these laws elsewhere. While Repair.org has been heavily involved in crafting legislation in places like New York, Massachusetts, and Nebraska, the group wasn't even aware that the movement had spread to three new states until last week.
"It came out of the blue to me," Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of the organization, told me. "We did nothing and they just popped up, which validates that this is an important problem for a lot of people who have been independently looking for a solution to repair monopolies."
"The fact that there were eight states that had already filed bills seems to have served as an inspiration," she added.
So far this year, tech company lobbying has killed right to repair bills in Minnesota and Nebraska; lawmakers in Tennessee have decided to defer consideration of its bill until 2018. Legislation is still pending in New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Kansas, Wyoming, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Iowa, Missouri, and North Carolina.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/apple-is-lobbying-against-your-right-to-repair-iphones-new-york-state-records-confirm
QuoteApple Is Lobbying Against Your Right to Repair iPhones, New York State Records Confirm
Jason Koebler
May 18 2017, 8:00am
Behind the scenes, Apple is trying to kill legislation that would make it easier for normal people to fix iPhones.
Lobbying records in New York state show that Apple, Verizon, and the tech industry's largest trade organizations are opposing a bill that would make it easier for consumers and independent companies to repair your electronics.
The bill, called the "Fair Repair Act," would require electronics companies to sell replacement parts and tools to the general public, would prohibit "software locks" that restrict repairs, and in many cases would require companies to make repair guides available to the public. Apple and other tech giants have been suspected of opposing the legislation in many of the 11 states where similar bills have been introduced, but New York's robust lobbying disclosure laws have made information about which companies are hiring lobbyists and what bills they're spending money on public record.
According to New York State's Joint Commission on Public Ethics, Apple, Verizon, Toyota, the printer company Lexmark, heavy machinery company Caterpillar, phone insurance company Asurion, and medical device company Medtronic have spent money lobbying against the Fair Repair Act this year. The Consumer Technology Association, which represents thousands of electronics manufacturers, is also lobbying against the bill.
(https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1495058973386-Screen-Shot-2017-05-17-at-120345-PM.png?resize=1050:*)
To be clear, each of the companies and trade organizations listed in this article—including Apple—lobbies on a variety of bills each year, and not all or even a majority of that money has been spent on right to repair legislation. But the records show a huge discrepancy between the political clout of large corporations lobbying against this legislation and that of their customers, who stand to benefit greatly from the bill.
Fair repair is one of just three bills Apple lobbied on in March and April
The records show that companies and organizations lobbying against right to repair legislation spent $366,634 to retain lobbyists in the state between January and April of this year. Thus far, the Digital Right to Repair Coalition—which is generally made up of independent repair shops with several employees—is the only organization publicly lobbying for the legislation. It has spent $5,042 on the effort, according to the records.
A retainer agreement between Apple and lobbying firm the Roffe Group notes that the law firm will "lobby Apple's corporate issues, including but not limited to areas of environment, tax, and retail." According to the contract, Apple pays Roffe Group $9,000 per month for its services. According to the records, fair repair (New York Senate bill 618A) is one of just three bills Apple lobbied on in March and April. The records—which as far as I can tell have not been published on a news site before—also show that Apple lobbied against similar legislation in 2016 and 2015.
(https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1495059438553-Screen-Shot-2017-05-17-at-61211-PM.png?resize=1050:*)
As I mentioned, it's no huge secret that Apple is lobbying against right to repair. In Nebraska, for instance, the sponsor of a right to repair bill said she was visited by Apple lobbyists who told her the state would turn into a "Mecca for bad actors" if the legislation passed. But with New York's state records, we have proof that Apple's fighting against repair around the country.
The important thing to keep in mind is that supporters of the bill have been very open about why they support the legislation. Meanwhile, the companies that are lobbying against it do not ever speak publicly about why they oppose fair repair laws. Both Apple and Roffe Group did not respond to my request for more information about the company's specific position on right to repair legislation.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzp7ny/tractor-hacking-right-to-repair
https://www.youtube.com/v/F8JCh0owT4w
QuoteTractor-Hacking Farmers Are Leading a Revolt Against Big Tech's Repair Monopolies
Farmers across the country are fighting John Deere's repair monopoly—and winning.
Kyle Schwarting is a farmer by trade, and a hacker by necessity. His farm, about 20 minutes outside the city limits of Lincoln, Nebraska, is full of tractors and agricultural equipment, which he picks up in various states of repair from fellow farmers, fixes up, and resells.
"I would say what I'm doing is hacking," Schwarting tells me, gesturing to a Windows laptop and a USB-to-tractor cable he Frankensteined himself.
The plan is to hook the laptop up to a gigantic John Deere combine, which, like all farm equipment, has become increasingly difficult to repair as companies have introduced new sensors and software into nearly every component. Schwarting has found a hacked version of John Deere's Service Advisor software on a torrent site, which he can use to diagnose problems with the equipment and ultimately repair it. Without this software, even minor repairs will cost him thousands of dollars from a licensed John Deere repair person and more importantly, time.
"To get it on a truck is $1,000, and by the time you get it hauled somewhere and hauled back, you're $2,000 into getting something minor fixed," he said. "You have a real small window to get [a harvest] done in the year, and the tractor broke down. I had to find the software to be able to repair my tractor and make my customer happy and make a living."
John Deere, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, AT&T, Tesla, and the vast majority of big tech firms have spent the last decade monopolizing repair: "Authorized service providers" who pay money to these companies and the companies themselves are the only ones who have access to replacement parts, tools, and service manuals to fix broken machines; they are also the only ones who have software that can circumvent encryption locks that artificially prevent people like Schwarting from working on equipment. So people like Schwarting find enterprising ways around these locks by finding unauthorized versions of software or by hacking through firmware altogether.
But what started as hacking out of necessity has quickly transformed into a bonafide political movement.
Schwarting and other farmers across the country have found themselves on the front lines of the right to repair movement, the biggest people-versus-big-tech revolt in in recent memory. The goal of this movement is to ultimately get a law passed that will allow farmers, independent repair people, and average consumers to take back ownership of their tractors, their tablets, their cell phones, their air conditioners.
I met with farmers in Nebraska who are leading this movement, and the push is showing considerable momentum: 18 states are currently considering "fair repair" bills, which would require manufacturers to sell repair parts and tools to the masses, would require them to make repair manuals available to the public, and would require them to provide circumvention tools for software locks that are specifically designed to prevent third party repair.
"The Fair Repair act gives an individual the ability—you've always had the right—to purchase the diagnostic tools or to take their equipment somewhere local, or to try and repair the equipment yourself," Lydia Brasch, a state senator who is sponsoring the bill in Nebraska, told me.
An exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act specifically makes it legal to hack tractors for the purposes of repair. But John Deere makes farmers sign licensing agreements that limit the amount of tinkering they are supposed to do one their equipment; violating it could be considered breach of contract and farmers who do are liable to be sued.
In Nebraska, the legislation is borne out of sheer frustration and a feeling of loss of agency from farmers whose families have spent decades repairing their own equipment and have suddenly found themselves beholden to and reliant on multinational corporations with dealerships that may be located many hours from their farms and have hours- or days-long repair backlogs.
"The seat in my tractor is more complicated than the entire tractor [I grew up with]," Tom Schwarz, a fifth-generation farmer old me. "As tractors have become more high-tech, we do not have the ability to hook up a tractor to diagnose it, to repair it, or even to activate parts that we've already bought. There are used parts that are available, but if I put them on, the tractor won't run" because of software activation locks.
People in other states feel the same frustrations—whether it's an independent smartphone repair person who can't source iPhone screens, a customer who has been forced to wait weeks to get their battery replaced by Apple, or a hospital forced to pay top-dollar for medical equipment service that's only available through the manufacturer.
Big tech is legitimately scared that a state may pass a fair repair bill. Lobbyists from every major big tech trade organization have shown up at state hearings on the issue and have written PDF info sheets for lawmakers designed to incite fear; lobbyists from individual companies like Apple have shown up in the offices of lawmakers who support and introduce these bills, but rarely show up at the hearings themselves because they know the legislation is popular with the masses.
"The more obviously they're arguing for their vested financial interests versus something people care about, the harder that lobbying becomes," Nathan Proctor, director of the US PIRG's right to repair campaign told me, referring to individual company lobbying tactics. "It's basic strategy to send a trade group instead. They don't want to hurt their brand so they want their way without having to pay the consequences of doing something that hurts consumers."
The agriculture industry, as least is feeling the pressure. Earlier this month, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers and the Equipment Dealers Association—two farming industry trade groups that represent John Deere and other giants in the space—announced that its manufacturers and dealers support "commonsense repair solutions" and will voluntarily provide some of the requirements outlined in fair repair legislation.
The groups say manufacturers will provide or sell manuals and product guides and diagnostic software by model year 2021 (full details embedded below); the group continues to push hard against legislation that would allow farmers to modify their equipment, which has become popular as tech-savvy farmers and mechanics have learned to make tractors more powerful while learning to repair them.
"We said to manufacturers—if your top goal is to strike a balance that gives consumers, farmers, and ranchers the tools they're asking for while guarding against legislation that we feel would essentially raid software and undercut a lot of intellectual property on it, you've got to be willing to follow through on this commitment," Mike O'Brien, public affairs director for AEM told me. He noted that the industry does not want to see a law that includes specific regulations or requirements for manufacturers or anything that protects a farmer's right to modify software to change tractor performance. "We're making a good-faith effort to respond to the consumer, why is that not adequate?"
It may be too late, though. Repairing, modifying, and, yes, improving, cars, tractors, and the stuff we nominally own is an American tradition, one that a large cross section of people feel strongly about.
"It's fundamental," Proctor said. "If you own something, you can do what you want with it."
Quote from: Adam White on March 30, 2017, 12:28:01 PM
Yes, iTunes is the only software that works with iPhones (as far as syncing files and buying apps goes). But that's a software thing.
Yes, but the software is from the hardware manufacturer who also controls what kind of software you can put on your device via the app store.
I always found it irritating that if I want to copy music or movies to my iPod, I had to use itunes. In general, moving files to an Apple mobile device is not easy.
For other phones, tablets and mobile MP3 players, you either simply copied your movies or songs directly to the device via a WIFI / cable connection or copied them to an SD-card. No special software required.
As for repairs - what happens to your warranty if you do not get your iDevice repaired by Apple or an authorized repair shop ? Apple can even brick your device if you do not use "genuine" parts.
This even comes down to cables - got a USB - lightning cable for my iPad - and not an el-cheapo model - but after an iOs update the ipdad refused to let me use it since it was not "genuine".
Sure not something I would want - in general I dislike the idea of a device manufacturer trying to tell me what I can or cannot do with a device that I paid full price for. If it were heavily subsidized (e.g. Amazon tablets) then that is something else entirely, but if I pay full price it should be up to me to decide what to do with it.
Quote from: Gunnar on February 17, 2018, 07:03:44 AM
Quote from: Adam White on March 30, 2017, 12:28:01 PM
Yes, iTunes is the only software that works with iPhones (as far as syncing files and buying apps goes). But that's a software thing.
Yes, but the software is from the hardware manufacturer who also controls what kind of software you can put on your device via the app store.
I always found it irritating that if I want to copy music or movies to my iPod, I had to use itunes. In general, moving files to an Apple mobile device is not easy.
For other phones, tablets and mobile MP3 players, you either simply copied your movies or songs directly to the device via a WIFI / cable connection or copied them to an SD-card. No special software required.
As for repairs - what happens to your warranty if you do not get your iDevice repaired by Apple or an authorized repair shop ? Apple can even brick your device if you do not use "genuine" parts.
This even comes down to cables - got a USB - lightning cable for my iPad - and not an el-cheapo model - but after an iOs update the ipdad refused to let me use it since it was not "genuine".
Sure not something I would want - in general I dislike the idea of a device manufacturer trying to tell me what I can or cannot do with a device that I paid full price for. If it were heavily subsidized (e.g. Amazon tablets) then that is something else entirely, but if I pay full price it should be up to me to decide what to do with it.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But my point to Finehoe was that I assumed Chris's initial post referred to repairing the iPhone (like the screen).
Any mobile phone ties you to some sort of ecosystem - like iOS or Android (more or less). It's kind of hard to get away from that. Same with computers - again, more or less. Ultimately, you are stuck dealing with the apps or programs that are available for the operating system you choose.
Apple is the worst, though. I just typed this on a MacBook. And I own an iPhone and an iPad. Oh, and Apple TV. So I'm an idiot.
Pretty cool video... iFixit...
https://www.youtube.com/v/tx-9LkVIdz0
https://www.wired.com/story/fight-right-repair-cars-turns-ugly/