SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the take-a-little-ride-on-the-old-John-Deere dept.
An article about how the Russian military stole farm equipment from a John Deere dealership in the Ukraine, only to find it all remotely disabled when trying to use/sell it on the other side:
Russian troops in the occupied city of Melitopol have stolen all the equipment from a farm equipment dealership -- and shipped it to Chechnya, according to a Ukrainian businessman in the area.
But after a journey of more than 700 miles, the thieves were unable to use any of the equipment -- because it had been locked remotely.
Over the past few weeks there's been a growing number of reports of Russian troops stealing farm equipment, grain and even building materials - beyond widespread looting of residences. But the removal of valuable agricultural equipment from a John Deere dealership in Melitopol speaks to an increasingly organized operation, one that even uses Russian military transport as part of the heist.
[...] Other sources in the Melitopol region say theft by Russian military units has extended to grain held in silos, in a region that produces hundreds of thousands of tonnes of crops a year.
Are there other examples like this justifying some sort of limited DRM? How prominent do you think this will be held up as an example in lobbying efforts to justify not passing "Right To Repair" laws?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Tuesday May 03 2022, @12:03PM (6 children)
Well, John Deere's DRM means that you don't have permission to repair, as part and parcel of their being able to remotely disable.
According to a relevant article [dtnpf.com],
Right to repair would take away the DRM, which would take away the remote control capability in its current form.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2022, @01:22PM (1 child)
ok. I agree that what this company is asking for right now is absurd.
but I fully support their right to use any kind of DRM they want BEFORE "the thing" is purchased. now, and in the future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2022, @02:24PM
The problem is that the remote disable is baked into the guts of the tractor. If it were a removable device, it would be acceptable. Removed upon sale or end of lease.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 03 2022, @03:35PM (1 child)
John Deere is definitely a bad actor when it comes to DRM.
But it is possible for us to separate the application of certain aspects of programming from an asshole company when discussing the DRM, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2022, @11:33PM
TFA is about DRM being applied by the 'asshole company' in question.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2022, @04:28PM
Current Right to repair bills may take it away, but it could be possible to have both - basically require the remote control gets turned over on sale of the equipment. Then the individual farmer would get the same benefit that John Deere currently gets - able to remotely brick their own stuff.
IOW, require ALL the keys be handed over - the physical door key, the ignition key, the crypto keys that allow access to remote bricking and any part signing keys. It's only framed as an either-or situation because the manufacturer doesn't want to transfer the benefits of DRM in the sale of the product.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday May 04 2022, @12:30AM
Are you sure about that? DRM extends to the physica/mechanial non-digital parts of the thing or just the digital parts?
If the latter then DRM just means you can't "repair" the digital parts, i.e. the software running; which is probably a good thing as "most" farmers won't really know software development anyway and given there's no certification for programming farmer equipment, general run of the mill programmer could create unforeseen problems.
Of course DRM is still not a good thing in general due to its original intent.