Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryanrasmussen | Hacker News Reader

Thinking of who wouldn't vote for right to repair I can only come up with:

1. leaders of companies that would be adversely affected by right to repair 2. perhaps employees of same companies but that seems iffy as I doubt the adverse effects would be so great as to threaten employment. 3. People who actually think that although it would be to their benefit to have a right to repair there is an encroachment on a company's rights to make their products as they seem fit by enforcing it.

Have I missed anyone? Because I think at that rate the population would vote overwhelmingly for it if offered the choice.

View on HN

How does John Deere advocate for their position? Is it about protecting trade secrets or keeping the machines in better condition for possible resale? Or did they just stay quiet because they knew they were in the wrong?

Whatever it might be, I'm sure I would disagree with it, but I'd be curious how they try to justify it. Especially when you're talking about farmers, who have an extreme DIY culture.

I've seen a few arguments.

* That modern tractors are complex enough systems that only official techs should be working on them.

* That if they allow third party mods, they can't guarantee regulatory compliance with emissions.

* That they have proprietary secrets that would need to be divulged of the systems were more open, and they just wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

* That their pricing model is dependent on recouping initial capital expense with service contracts.

I personally don't buy these arguments, or at least don't buy that they lead to a better world than the alternative, but those are what I've heard.

Those arguments don't work in the automotive market. Modern cars are just as complex, yet anyone is allowed to change their own oil or do anything they want really (though they can get frustrated by anything requiring a proprietary scan tool). And car owners are allowed to mode their cars however they want as long as they don't run afoul of emissions laws (yet many of them do anyway, because enforcement is poor).

That's a good point. If a farmer mods it into being illegal, it's on him isn't it?

Regulatory compliance is an interesting argument. I can imagine many cases where a device is legal only because the firmware implements certain restrictions that the user might desire to remove but should not.

Off the top of my head:

1. the emissions example that you make. The VW dieselgate is essentially about this; the users may want to switch to a 'more dirty' firmware because that gets better performance or mileage; but the vehicle inspection system (in countries where that is a thing) wants to ensure that vehicles with such modifications are not allowed to drive.

2. digital radios that might technically be able to receive and transmit over a wider frequency range, but are legal to use or sell only because they have restricted the 'forbidden' ranges, limited the maximum transmitting power to the level that doesn't require a permit, etc.

3. scooters and other vehicles which are technically more capable, but are sold in a certification/tax regime as "speed less than X", which is enforced in firmware; and modifying it to remove that restriction may be illegal.

4. drones obeying a 'no-fly' zone blacklist and refusing to fly near airports - again, a firmware restriction that some users might plausibly want to remove.

I know a common line for vehicles was basically: 3rd party parts (and service) can't be guaranteed to be to the same quality as 1st party parts (and service) which can cause extra wear and disruptions to other parts of the vehicle even if they're not immediately apparent. Since we can't control what part 3rd parties use (or level of service) we restrict repair to our licensed repairers (via drm, patents, custom tooling, and/or lack of documentation).

It's somewhat justified in that it theoretically protects customers and the companies reputation.

Personally I don't disagree with this argument but I don't believe it to be sufficient to justify the extra cost and inconvenience to customers over a percentage of poor acting repairers and part suppliers.

The problem with that argument is that the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 clearly gives consumers the right to repair their own devices, and prevents manufacturers from denying warranty claims unless they can prove that 3rd-party parts of service caused the specific problem.

These arguments have been used before with cars, and they've been shot down.

> Have I missed anyone?

"Security-minded" folk who insist corporates should have full control of their device via signed code from pre-boot, incidentally preventing "non-authorised" replacement parts from working since repair is an attack vector, allegedly.

Apple

$1000, as seen in terms of security is not much to spend on something "perishable". Fixing your secure phone takes more than knowing how to RTFM.....

Which means bringing it to repair shop.... which means evil maid or whatever mix of flavor of vulns that creates

Would you trust Joe Random to replace anything in the hardware authentication pipeline?

Would you trust a plumber entering your house? They might plant bugs. paranoia

Would you trust Joe Random to replace anything in the hardware authentication pipeline?

Edit: Replied to the wrong comment...

Why would I want a "hardware authentication pipeline" in a tractor?

Replied to the wrong comment....

What's the threat model for a tractor/harvester/etc...? Who wants to send a piece of farm equipment on a very slow rampage via a complex and difficult hack job? One that will be stopped if the manufacturer has any sense at all and has physical kill switch.

Maybe sabotage from competing farmers? But that seems far less likely than the owner wanting to maintain his equipment after the manufacturer has abandoned it.

Devils advocating here, but they could always use the boogeyman of China wanting to disrupt our exports via espionage.

Remember, doesn't have to be likely, just has to be a good headline.

I feel like if spies were sneaking around farms disabling tractors they probably wouldn't do it via a software thing. Lighting them on fire or shaped charges on the engine seem harder to reverse.

Ehhh, I'm thinking more along the lines of Stuxnet here. i.e. could something be done that doesn't necessarily destroy the attacked equipment itself, but instead impacts the output in a negative (and hard to trace) form.

John Deere is not the only opponent to right-to-repair: Apple has consistently opposed any such proposals and I had them in mind (and Google too with how it handles security on Chromebooks; granted, Google provides a temporary "run-your-own-code" escape-hatch at boot time). Whenever Apples antipathy to 3rd party repairs is discussed on HN - there's almost always a contingent that declares security (as imposed by Apple) is a reasonable trade-off to for not being able to do your own repairs

4. Politicians taking campaign contributions from 1. and 2.

Yes, profits are threatened when rights to repair are allowed, and without profits nobody has a job nor can feed their family. That's why we need small government to get out of the way and make people replace their stuff rather than repair it. It's a basic human corporate right to make people buy more stuff from manufacturers rather than repair or buy parts, and freedom is threatened when people are allowed this choice.

4. Lawmakers receiving campaign contributions from those in group 1.

The same reason millions of Americans voted for "trickle down" and other irrational economic decisions. They're overly manipulated by propaganda.

Well that's sort of #3, but the thing is trickle down is a lie about how economy works that fools people who have not done any reading on the subject.

I guess a similar lie for repairing products would have to be something like - the possibilities of modern manufacturing have progressed to such a point that it is simpler, cheaper, and easier to make longer lasting products that do not need to be repaired if they, paradoxically, are made in a way that makes it impossible to repair them.

I actually do not know enough about modern manufacturing to know if the above is false but I assume it must be as I have not heard the argument, and I just made it up now, it seems unlikely I would make up an argument that was also true. I would also of course be unlikely to believe the argument given that I would see how it was made to the benefit of the people who would profit from its truth, and at any rate it would make it easier to make built in obsolescence a part of the manufacturing process.

But anyway that would be my example of a similar argument to trickle down in the context of right to repair.

Apple has at time made a version of this argument for their iPhones. There probably is some truth to it (removing the repairability constraint probably does let them build thinner devices at times) but overall it is more about maintaining control than engineering practicalities.

You see the same about notebook computers with soldered RAM/storage - hand-wavey arguments about socketed hardware coming loose.

Like with most of the half-truths you find on the internet, it seems plausible but without evidence such as how often Apple were reseating RAM in laptops we have no way of really knowing how accurate it is.

Please don't take HN on generic ideological tangents. They're repetitive and routinely become flamewars.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I don't know, Americans seem to be relatively more in favor of allowing corporations to screw them than many other countries.

This post may sound flippant and is getting a lot of down votes, but this seems like an interesting discussion to be had. Do we (I am from the U.S.) tend to allow companies to screw us more than other countries? If so is it cultural, or something legal? Is it part of our broader convenience culture? I don't now, but it would be interesting to dig into if anyone can provide evidence for or against this.

It's getting downvotes because it was posted in bad faith. Many Americans would say we give corporations the freedom to act how they wish, and we give individuals the freedom to do business with the corporations they choose. The argument to be had is how much the government needs to watch out for the citizenship, because every "protective" law they pass is a restriction on the aforementioned freedoms.

The American school of thought (I'm calling it that to differentiate from the European school of thought) is that the amount of government meddling in interactions between two parties not involving the government should be kept to a minimum, and the individual should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. When you frame it this way, you might get less downvotes and more responses.

> we give individuals the freedom to do business with the corporations they choose

Is it really bad faith when this belief is obviously horseshit? Government sponsored oligopolies exist partly because we allow corporations to exercise their freedom to act how they wish at the expense of the individual's freedom to do business with the corporations they choose. The government doesn't really act to watch out for the citizenship in this context and as a result doesn't restrict the freedom of corporations to act as they wish. Given this, the statement that "Americans seem to be relatively more in favor of allowing corporations to screw them than many other countries" just seems obvious.

This school of thought works as long as individuals are free to do business with corporations. It breaks down when there are monopolies whether they are farm equipment companies or platform operators like Amazon or Apple.

I'd just like to point out that Apple isn't anywhere near a monopoly in any way at all. Nothing is forcing you to use Apple devices or services: there are lots of alternatives. In fact, in the mobile phone market alone, Apple is actually a pretty small player globally, at maybe 15% or less. It's very easy to avoid being an Apple customer.

It's not that hard to avoid using Amazon either. Anything they sell can be bought somewhere else. But Amazon is frequently the cheapest and most convenient option, so it might feel like it's hard to avoid unless you're willing to pay a premium to buy somewhere else. But this just isn't the case with Apple: you have to pay a huge premium to be an Apple customer. Apple is successful solely because of marketing and brand cachet, not pricing like Amazon.

Finally, there's no monopolies in farm equipment either. John Deere customers lock themselves into that vendor somewhat willingly (though there is an argument that in many places, the only local equipment dealer is a JD dealer). There are alternatives: New Holland, Kubota, etc.

The problem is, between copyrights, patents and limited liability, we give companies a huge amount of power over consumers. That's before we start writing about the power money provides large companies.

Your comment is incoherent in the face of investors having limited liability. The intent of it is to encourage investment that benefits the public.

If investors want to screw the public, we should take their limited liability toys away.

> The argument to be had is how much the government needs to watch out for the citizenship, because every "protective" law they pass is a restriction on the aforementioned freedoms.

This doesn't work. It might in a "history" book that is intentionally written to espouse pride and nationalism in your nation's ideals, but this is not the reality of human beings.

The above __might__ work if all parties worked with good intent, but that's not what corporations are. They need to be governed, otherwise they will infect your government in order to produce a reality that is better for their existence.

This is not theory, it is practical knowledge of the world we live in.

I really really wish the pro-corporate Americans are able to divorce themselves from their fantasy of what corporatism might look like when padded by bullshit about "freedom", as opposed to what it has already done and will continue to do to their government.

> They need to be governed, otherwise they will infect your government in order to produce a reality that is better for their existence.

Indeed. I feel people learn some things in school that are essentially "fixed points" of economics - like supply/demand balance - and internalize the view that markets are static. They're not. They're dynamic systems. They optimize their own environments. It's as you say - corporations (and businesses in general) will happily make the legal system change to favor them. It's what markets do. Anything that can make improve profits is sought - whether it's a better product, a better marketing lie, or a change in laws.

I personally believe it is a mixture of

1) American apathy to corporate behavior 2) Corporations being most willing to dedicate resources to lobbying in the US (compared to European countries) due to its corporate friendly legal and legislature systems and extremely powerful economy

3) Corporations donating to political campaigns often influencing the candidate's / party's messaging.

Perhaps this is bundling in your #2, but it's powerful enough to individually call out.

Yeah, that was part of what I was trying to communicate. I think another political aspect is the corporate influence on political media that heavily influences the average voter's stance on many issues related to corporate governance. I.e. CNN/Fox/NBC etc. have vast and diverse corporate goals but also control much of the political discussion that influences voters. The fact that many media companies exist under the same conglomeration only exasperates this effect.

I think, absolutely yes. Americans generally are opposed to regulation of corporations, especially conservative ones, and most especially ones that have a libertarian streak.

But they're totally fine with regulation of people, interestingly enough. Maybe not the real libertarians, but certainly the conservatives.

We have given companies the freedom to LIE.

Hello, ad industry at large....

We're neck deep in it. Of course no one recognizes it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com