Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)

orchardandvine.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)

#41

Post by shortcake27 »

makeitdouble wrote: post #26
olliej wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Activation lock for phones was demonstrably effective at reducing theft of the products it was applied to, so _if_ theft of tractors is an issue this seems like a good thing, _if_ JD is also willing to commit to/legally required to maintain the activation service.

I'm not sure we have proof it's that effective. Recently 400+ phones were stolen from a store in a well prepared way, so I assume there's plenty of ways to work around or get value from the stolen phones despite whatever Apple is doing: https://www.macrumors.com/2023/04/06/washington-apple-store-...

I wouldn’t be surprised if activation lock causes _more_ theft. If stolen devices are worth less due to activation lock, thieves need to steal more phones to make up the lost profits.

Also, the data on a phone is almost always far more valuable than the phone itself. If a thief steals my phone, it’s much better for me if they erase it. But they can’t do that, so my stolen phone with all my data just sits there one exploit away from being exposed.

Activation lock only serves to benefit the manufacturer as they get to sell more phones. It doesn’t benefit the consumer at all.

Re: John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)

#42

Post by cryu »

shortcake27 wrote: post #37
ris58h wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can’t just transplant an iPhone screen from one phone to another. Why so? May be I can't but how difficult it for a repair shop?

Because all the parts are paired. Hugh Jeffreys has an interesting series where he buys two new phones and swaps the parts. Basically nothing can be swapped without breaking core functionality. Swapping a screen, for example, loses true-tone and auto brightness. This can be fixed by replanting a tiny chip from the old screen to the new screen, requiring extremely precise micro-soldering skills that the average repair…

Yep, absolutely true -- I worked on the project ("FDR / New Deal").

It was originally supposed to prevent a repeat of the Hon Hai Zhengzhou incident where a team of line workers mixed/matched parts from units that failed QC and sold the Frankensteined units on the grey market. (Massively oversimplified, but that's the general gist)

The resulting near-total inability to swap screens/buttons without knowing someone with FDR update access was seen as acceptable collateral damage.

Re: John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)

#43

Post by least »

unglaublich wrote: post #20

This is the different sign of the same coin. Not you, but JD controls the kill-switch. They can disable a device to render it useless whenever something happens that they don't like. Whether it's theft or violation of your leasing terms. If the owner was in control of the kill-switch, it would still have all benefits of theft protection, without the problems that arise with a manufacturer controlling devices indefini…

> If the owner was in control of the kill-switch, it would still have all benefits of theft protection, without the problems that arise with a manufacturer controlling devices indefinitely.

Apple has a similar feature for its devices that is in control of the user, but ultimately it's still depends on the device connecting to the internet and getting a ping that it's "lost" from Apple's servers. There's not really anything stopping Apple from locking people's devices, either.

I just feel like "self hosting" isn't a real company solution to a kill switch, so I'm not sure how you have a kill switch without interacting with the company in any way, even if you're not John Deere.

Re: John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)

#44

Post by artogahr »

least wrote: post #43
unglaublich wrote: post #20

This is the different sign of the same coin. Not you, but JD controls the kill-switch. They can disable a device to render it useless whenever something happens that they don't like. Whether it's theft or violation of your leasing terms. If the owner was in control of the kill-switch, it would still have all benefits of theft protection, without the problems that arise with a manufacturer controlling devices indefini…

> If the owner was in control of the kill-switch, it would still have all benefits of theft protection, without the problems that arise with a manufacturer controlling devices indefinitely. Apple has a similar feature for its devices that is in control of the user, but ultimately it's still depends on the device connecting to the internet and getting a ping that it's "lost" from Apple's servers. There's not really an…

At that scale it should be trivial to self host a server with a static IP that confirms the ownership. Make the server IP on the tractor password protected or smth. Modern tractors are internet connected anyway.

Re: John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)

#45

Post by sirdvd »

gommm wrote: post #16
olliej wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Activation lock for phones was demonstrably effective at reducing theft of the products it was applied to, so _if_ theft of tractors is an issue this seems like a good thing, _if_ JD is also willing to commit to/legally required to maintain the activation service.

My phone (a samsung s21 ultra) was snatched from my hand while I was using it to check google maps in Barcelona. I tried to remote wipe it 5 minutes later at my hotel but it had already been disconnected. So the thief was very quick at removing the sim card. I checked online since and it seems that even with the advent activation lock, there's still a lot of phone thefts in some countries. They just sell the spare pa…

I'm not sure is the best analogy. Perhaps it wouldn't reduce the value, but I don't see how you move a tractor that wont start (unless you want the owner standing beside you while you hack).

Re: John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)

#46

Post by Paul-Craft »

Gigachad wrote: post #3

Tbh this seems not that problematic. I get that there is a lot of distasteful stuff going on around John Deere, but I think it's useful to see this on it's own which is a useful feature. Account locks have done a huge amount to reduce phone theft, a tractor is 100x more expensive.

> Account locks have done a huge amount to reduce phone theft, a tractor is 100x more expensive.

Based on an iPhone 14 @ $1500 and what I saw on a price list I googled, John Deere tractors seem to range from around $40k to around $575k. That's a really wide range, from 20x to nearly 400x as expensive.

https://commercialvehicleinfo.com/john-deere-tractors-price-...

Re: John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)

#47

Post by Gigachad »

gommm wrote: post #16
olliej wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Activation lock for phones was demonstrably effective at reducing theft of the products it was applied to, so _if_ theft of tractors is an issue this seems like a good thing, _if_ JD is also willing to commit to/legally required to maintain the activation service.

My phone (a samsung s21 ultra) was snatched from my hand while I was using it to check google maps in Barcelona. I tried to remote wipe it 5 minutes later at my hotel but it had already been disconnected. So the thief was very quick at removing the sim card. I checked online since and it seems that even with the advent activation lock, there's still a lot of phone thefts in some countries. They just sell the spare pa…

iPhones are a bit more theft resistant as the parts are tied to the main board.

Re: John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)

#48

Post by BiteCode_dev »

anilakar wrote: post #31
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but phones have a reason to be online most of the time. A vehicle should be able to be used without ever being online. Otherwise you are at the mercy of udpates, the provider good will (and John Deere as little), network availability and so on.

So are CNC machines. Are you aware that if you move a modern one, it's gonna be bricked?

And it's a very bad no good awful thing.

Stallman is extreme, but he got that part right. DRM and other bricking mechanism are not our friends.

Re: John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)

#49

Post by SuzanSarong »

petepete wrote: post #23
tommica wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn, stolen while using it, that is quite brazen :(

It's a fairly common tactic in the UK. I've seen plenty of CCTV clips where kids cycle past people on their phones and snatch them. The thief is 10m away before the person's even reacted.

[flagged]

Re: John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)

#50

Post by salawat »

cryu wrote: post #42
shortcake27 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because all the parts are paired. Hugh Jeffreys has an interesting series where he buys two new phones and swaps the parts. Basically nothing can be swapped without breaking core functionality. Swapping a screen, for example, loses true-tone and auto brightness. This can be fixed by replanting a tiny chip from the old screen to the new screen, requiring extremely precise micro-soldering skills that the average repair…

Yep, absolutely true -- I worked on the project ("FDR / New Deal"). It was originally supposed to prevent a repeat of the Hon Hai Zhengzhou incident where a team of line workers mixed/matched parts from units that failed QC and sold the Frankensteined units on the grey market. (Massively oversimplified, but that's the general gist) The resulting near-total inability to swap screens/buttons without knowing someone wit…

By who? And did you see it that way?

If that project came my way, it would have been a hard no, go find someone else. You literally implemented the most public unfriendly feature I've seen in a long time. That's one of those cases where sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

While I understand we are all entitled to differently prioritizing ethical red lines, it saddens me whenever I see the public suffering for the sake of increased corporate profits.

...and it is only the company that gained anything. The extra parts on the market would likely have driven prices down, making the handsets less high dollar desirable theft targets. Instead; user servicibility plummeted, planned obsolescence ensured the path of least resistance was "buy another", and the accountants likely beamed at the improvement to the bottom line while the execs patted themselves on the back for a job well done securing money that otherwise "would have been left on the table".

Oh well. So it goes.

Post reply on HN