There are field limits defined. But they are respected as algorithms need, to determine turn parameters at the end of a row. I could imagine easily that fiddling with that code could end up with a tractor on the other side.
What horror scenarios do you think are realistic? Remember we are considering multi-ton machines with maybe a thousand horsepower, wielding huge spinning blades and crusher mechanisms. What scenario can we consider that is not a horror show?
While I agree these systems are highly complex, I am not sure why farmers need to mess with source code to perform a repair? If farmers are messing with the code (disabling sensors or whatever), then I'd have to assume the farmer knows they are taking on this risk that their tractor will not function as expected.
If sensors can be safely disabled, then why not provide an easy to do that?
I agree; farmers should under no circumstance mess with code to perform a repair. I'm concerned that the software documentation is part of this bill (and in the minds of many technologists, should be open).
I am sure there are comparable sensors on these vehicles that can have inaccurate readings that can safely be ignored if the operator knows what they are doing.
Farmers aren't stupid. They're actually sometimes very high-IQ people because maintaining a profit with so many constraints is extremely difficult; and Silicon Valley flunkies would be in bankrupt within days of trying.
If all of these things were locked down following John Deere’s logic our daily lives would become very expensive and inconvenient.
We as a society have more than enough legal and insurance frameworks to mitigate any of the risks that you’ve mentioned.
However, farm equipment is classified as industrial equipment and if you can modify it to be unsafe without being an expert in that domain, then it is the manufacturers fault that you can do that.
Locking down industrial equipment so that it requires a trained technician to modify it is one of the ways that industrial equipment manufacturers try to mitigate the liability that they face.
This is not always the case, and if it gets to the point that legislation has to be written to stop you, it's likely you don't care that much about the law in the first place.
When Marvin Heemeyer built the Killdozer, nobody blamed Komatsu for providing him the parts. Unprecedented, violent problems can happen with all sorts of equipment. We stop these accidents by holding professionals liable, not their machines.
Product Liability in the Farm Equipment Industry - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY
I'd stress watching the section on farm equipment - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY?t=1166 and then continue on to case study 1 where a farm worker was maimed and the manufacturer was held liable (see lessons learned - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY?t=2561 ) ... and liability waivers to try to shift that to the farmer is at https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY?t=3760
The legislation and liability for industrial and agricultural equipment already exists. Under that structure, the manufacturer is the one facing the product liability claims if any claims are to be paid out.
If you (the framer) modify a JD tractor and someone gets hurt, JD is is the one likely to pay.
I gotta be honest it sounds like you have been exposed to Deere’s propaganda and believed it. To put this another way, I feel like you’re missing what this bill is really about.
Deere has added software locks to their modules so that even if you can source another identical module with identical firmware and you’re capable of plugging it in, you have to use dealer software to change the software lock and allow the module to work with your tractor.
No one is saying farmers need source code, they’re saying they need access to the dealer software tools (not engineering tools!) to allow replacement of modules without a trip to the dealer.
This is extremely important for farmers! Please read the replies to your comments and consider that you may have been misinformed. Respectfully, I think this can be a learning moment for you today.
> exposed to Deere’s propaganda and believed it.
and I feel we can add a dash of smug superioty over presumed to stupid farmers.
I worked on sheep shearing robots in the 1980s at UWA and went on to have a global career in geophyical data aquisition, processing, and interpretation with a sideline in developing "Google Earth" pre current Google Earth .. all funded by part time work in 800 million tonne per annum iron ore mining projects.
Now I'm hanging about with farmers in rural WA.
"Giant John Deere tractors" are small fry compared to mining machines .. and many farmers here have FiFo (Fly In - Fly Out) minesite experience working as electricians | mechanics | operators on mining operations.
The bulk of local area mechanics that come to fix tractors have that same background .. understanding the technology is not the issue with agricultural machine repair, it's gate-keeping by the companies and system protocols designed to hinder part replacement, board updates, diagnosis, etc without a commission going back to oginal manufacturer.
By the way please show your farmer friends my open source farming robot. Sounds like you and yours would appreciate it. https://community.twistedfields.com/t/join-the-solar-farming...
I jest, of course, but, this is such an important point that engineers and the designers of a product don't have monopoly on intelligence and people need not to be babied. I think some people even come to believe it themselves and develop some kind of learned helplessness.
I think what we're saying here is changing the oil is not allowed. You can't change your own oil, or use third party oil because there is a detector that says this oil is not John Deere brand oil. The engine is now deactivated and you must call a John Deere technician to put in the encryption key to unlock the engine. Your next available appointment is in 938 days. Please note, we have a higher than expected volume of repair calls than usual this year. Your appointment may be de-prioritized. Sorry for the inconvenience.
The law essentially means the code is open. A huge change, that will take years and millions to achieve?
Well, then, that was stupid of John Deere and makes them a victim of their own arrogance. Period. There wouldn't be a law right now if John Deere hadn't unnecessarily, by their own actions, pissed off so many people in the process of increasing "safety" and "performance". As though anybody complained about the lack of "safety and performance" in the century-long history of tractors before computers came along and saved us.
Let's be clear here: John Deere, a multi-billion dollar company, isn't the victim here, but the aggressor against family farms, good intentions or not. Mourning for them is absurd.
> A huge change, that will take years and millions to achieve?
Nope. It's as easy as clicking "Publish" on the repositories and setting the Dropbox folder to "Public." I could do it in 15 minutes. Any legal review or trade secret review or whatever else is entirely the company protecting their own interests. John Deere has done that long enough, a hard deadline is their self-inflicted penalty.
How do you know this. Do you work for Jon Deere? Since the code is closed source that's simply an assumption
You can modify a household lawn mower and if you get maimed by it by those modifications, you're at fault.
However, for industrial equipment if you can modify it - the manufacturer is likely liable. Consider how often you hear about deaths due to manufacturing defects (the stats for deaths for framers is 60 - 70 per year per 100,000 in the US).
https://www.wkw.com/farming-accidents/blog/farming-accidents... (personal injury lawyer site)
That’s interesting if true, but do you have a better source (ideally, a court case)? I don’t see that theory of liability discussed anywhere on the page you linked.
It also has two case studies in it.
I don’t think any farmer is looking to tinker with the control software, and even if they want they should be able to tinker considering it’s their property and their farmland and only they themselves are liable for any damages caused to neighbours or otherwise.
John Deere is just trying to create artificial barriers and extract more value from existing customers.
Obviously the majority of farmers aren't going to be going into the software and editing it themselves, but instead paying reputable companies in the industry to do the programming/fixing/debugging for them.
Companies like John Deere could embrace this by releasing a ton of guides and self-learning classes to teach these same farmers how to do basic coding, repairs, debugging and etc. themselves. Could start a whole new wave and generation of tech-literate and educated farmers which would be better for all involved.
This bill explicitly demands release of software documents. Why do you suppose?
Anyway yes the open-source voice is loud here. Just being a voice for taking care how carefully that happens.
And having seen the software testing environment at John Deere, I am terrified of letting novices diddle around with that stuff. Do they understand dynamics and calculus and control systems? Because the John Deere engineers do. They account for slosh in the sprayer trailing the tractor behind the disk, adjusting the steering to within inches of the previous pass and respecting hard field boundaries including implement width and turning radius dynamics.
I just don't see anybody doing anything but hacking around and causing dangerous situations. Then wanting it fixed under warranty.
Or worse, running through a fence into a neighborhood and demolishing property.